This is a very enlightening article (one among many from Bill Eddy) which offers a bit about his background and how he came to be so intimately involved in several key aspects of the adversarial divorce process and understanding it's evolution. As an attorney, mediator, and clinical social worker - his experience across these areas of expertise have given him some incredible insight into just how personality disordered individuals can thrive in the court system.
----------------------
Since more flexible and cost-conscious people nowadays are resolving their divorces in mediation, attorney-assisted negotiation, or just by themselves, those cases remaining in litigation may be increasingly driven by personality disorders.
----------------------
I've been at the courthouse more times than I care to remember. Including all of my own various activities, I've had the displeasure of watching the interactions of others involved in divorce & custody disputes and without Eddy's background - I'm inclined to believe his assessment.
My own situation could have ended quickly, cleanly, and with the minimal expense. I chose my original attorney with that in mind. PEW was saying "all the right things" which froze me in my shoes expecting the "amicable and friendly" divorce that most reasonable people who are faced with divorce desire. Once she got a negative-advocate attorney on her side, that ideal was dashed, along with everyone's financial futures, especially the children's. Every single day in America...
I'm compelled to believe the PEW's compulsion to litigate is fueled by her personality disorder. No normal, rational human being wants to file so many motions and petitions over the course of nearly 4-years (and counting). It's probably in excess of 30 at this point.
----------------------
The Nature of a Personality Disorder
A personality disorder does not usually go away except in a corrective on-going relationship - such as several years in a counseling relationship. Until then, the person may constantly seek a corrective experience through a series of unsatisfying relationships, through their children, or through the court process. In a sense, untreated personality disorders don't fade away - they just change venue.
----------------------
Boy, do they ever. Even after getting the divorce she never fails to say she desperately wanted for so long, the madness just doesn't stop. At the very least I had thought that the combativeness would end. It didn't. As Eddy describes above - it just changed venue. She is like an actress on a stage, every new petition and hearing is another chance to perform for her newest audience. Only, her audience isn't changing so often and those who have repeatedly been witness to her act are becoming more and more wise to it.
----------------------
Personality Disorders Appearing in Family Court
Probably the most prevalent personality disorder in family court is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) - more commonly seen in women. BPD may be characterized by wide mood swings, intense anger even at benign events, idealization (such as of their spouse - or attorney) followed by devaluation (such as of their spouse - or attorney).
----------------------
One disorder among several that Eddy briefs in this article (HPD, NPD, DPD). There were occasions when, during a single hearing, all of the above characteristics would show. Of course, early "victories" spurred her self-promotion and accolades for her attorney(s). However, as she became more aggressive in her approach, often foolishly so, her behavior would be exposed for what it is, and her "losses" would start to mount.
The firing of her first attorney was done with a significant level of blame for various issues the fault of her counsel. It couldn't possibly have been PEW's outrageous demands, accusations, and behavior. There was also a matter of payment for services rendered I heard about, but never did hear the resolution. I recall there being some kind of a release that attorney #1 had PEW sign prior to turning over the case files to attorney #2. I'd bet money that attorney #1 discovered how whacked her client was and protected herself from unending future litigation. Oh, how I wish I could have had her "sign a release" to avoid the same.
The firing of her second attorney was almost identical, though there were no early victories anymore. Just losses. Little by little. These were, again, due to outrageous demands, accusations, and behavior. I know that some of my "evidence" was met with serious surprise on his part and he discovered that his client was, well - full-of-shit for the most part (if not the whole part). I actually remember the last time I saw him before walking out of court one day. After my having a successful hearing, he winked and gave me what appeared to be an almost reassuring smile. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but I swear to you - I think I saw relief in his eyes that he was done with it. At the risk of repeating myself - there was also a matter of payment...
----------------------
Cognitive Distortions and False Statement
Their world view is generally adversarial, so they often see all people as either allies or enemies in it. Their thinking is often dominated by cognitive distortions, such as: all-or-nothing thinking, emotional reasoning, personalization of benign events, minimization of the positive and maximization of the negative.
People with personality disorders also appear more likely to make false statements. Because of the thought process of a personality disorder, the person experiences interpersonal rejection or confrontation much more deeply than most people.
Lying may be justified in their eyes - possibly to bring a reconciliation. (This can be quite convoluted, like the former wife who alleged child sexual abuse so that her ex-husband's new wife would divorce him and he would return to her - or so she seemed to believe.) Or lying may be justified as a punishment in their eyes. Just as we have seen that an angry spouse may kill the other spouse, it is not surprising that many angry spouses lie under oath. There is rarely any consequence for this, as family court judges often believe the truth cannot be known - or that both are lying.
----------------------
No fewer than 6 petitions against me for contempt alone - all based entirely on completely false and/or stories embellished to the point of pure fantasy. All of them dismissed against me (quite simply because they were completely unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence). Yet, there have been no sanctions despite the empty threat of prosecution for "making false sworn statements" right above where the petitioner signs.
That doesn't even consider all of the perjury during the countless other hearings, the accusations of physical, mental, verbal, psychological abuse... against her, against the children, drug abuse, homosexuality, alcohol abuse - you name it, she's rolled it out in court without evidence nor subsequent punishment.
----------------------
Projection
Just as an active alcoholic or addict blames others for their substance abuse, those with personality disorders are often preoccupied with other people's behavior while avoiding any examination of their own behavior. Just as a movie projector throws a large image on a screen from a hidden booth, those with personality disorders project their internal conflicts onto their daily interactions - usually without knowing it. All the world is a stage - including court.
It is not uncommon in family court declarations for one with a personality disorder to claim the other party has characteristics which are really their own ("he's manipulative and falsely charming" or "she's hiding information and delaying the process"), and do not fit the other party. Spousal abusers claim the other is being abusive. Liars claim the other is lying.
----------------------
This is The Psycho Ex-Wife.
----------------------
How Family Court Fits Personality Disorders
Family Court is perfectly suited to the fantasies of someone with a personality disorder: There is an all-powerful person (the judge) who will punish or control the other spouse. The focus of the court process is perceived as fixing blame - and many with personality disorders are experts at blame. There is a professional ally who will champion their cause (their attorney - or if no attorney, the judge). Generally, those with personality disorders are highly skilled at - and invested in - the adversarial process.
Those with personality disorders often have an intensity that convinces inexperienced professionals - counselors and attorneys - that what they say is true. Their charm, desperation, and drive can reach a high level in this very emotional, bonding process with the professional. Yet this intensity is a characteristic of a personality disorder, and is completely independent from the accuracy of their claims.
----------------------
Yes, this has been my experience with The PEW. I did manage to encounter one professional "in the system" who seemed to dial herself into the PEW's behavior rather quickly. Something didn't quite sit well with her and, unlike most of the other professionals, who just parroted her unfounded accusations as if they were proven fact and always made recommendations against me, this one was different. If her hands weren't tied, I truly believe that the custody evaluator #2 would have made a dramatically different recommendation. She was the only one.
----------------------
What Can Be Done
Judges, attorneys, and family court counselors need to be trained in identifying personality disorders and how to treat them. Mostly, a corrective on-going relationship is needed - preferably with a counselor. However, they usually must be ordered into this because their belief systems include a life-time of denial and avoidance of self-reflection.
----------------------
Unfortunately, this takes time and investment - something unlikely to occur with people who have gotten quite comfortable with their place and purpose in the divorce industry - which is to cultivate the adversarial process and extract the maximum amount of funds from all parties. Then, when there is nothing left - they abandon them and move onto the next family.
----------------------
Therapists, in addition to being supportive, need to help clients challenge their own thinking: about their own role in the dispute; about the accuracy of their view of the other party; and about their high expectations of the court.
Likewise, attorneys need to also challenge their clients' thinking and not accept their declarations at face value. More time should be spent educating them to focus on negotiating solutions, rather than escalating blame.
----------------------
Another lofty expectation from people whose livelihoods depends upon their clients need of their services and paying for them. Challenging them means a tremendous risk of losing their paying client to another, less inclined competitor, who will do exactly what a PEW wants them to do until the funds run out or they can no longer deal with her bizarre behavior. This already happened twice to her, which is a small number compared to many others I know involved in litigation with a PD ex-spouse.
----------------------
As it applies to California, the court should make greater use of sanctions under Family Code Section 271 for parties and attorneys who refuse to negotiate and unnecessarily escalate the conflict and costs of litigation.
----------------------
Will someone let me know when a mother gets sanctioned for doing any such thing? Just click the "contact" link at the top of the page for our email.
----------------------
The court must realize that the parties are often not equally at fault. One or both parties may have a personality disorder, but that does not necessarily mean both are offenders (violent, manipulative, or lying). A non-offending, dependent spouse may truly need the court's assistance in dealing with the offender. The court should not be neutralized by mutual allegations without looking deeper. Otherwise, because of their personality style, the most offending party is often able to continue their offender behavior - either by matching the other's true allegations for a neutral outcome, or by being the most skilled at briefly looking good and thereby receiving the court's endorsement.
----------------------
I bolded that first sentence because if there is a single, most frustrating thing for myself and many, many people going through the divorce industry with a spouse suffering from a personality disorder. It's this "default mindset" that blame is shared equally. I believe that more deeply, this is a societal issue. Almost worse than "nothing is ever my fault" - is, "everything is our fault equally." Too many people have experienced this "both parents are to blame equally" mindset from judges, evaluators, conference officers - and if one parent dare deviate from this mantra - they are the liars and the resulting rulings & recommendations will reflect their disbelief of what you've attempted to convey.
The article is much more in depth and a worthwhile read.
How Personality Disorders Drive Family Court Litigation,By William A. Eddy, LCSW, Esq.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
How Personality Disorders Drive Family Court Litigation
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Get Over It? Not Until She Decides It's Time - 1/18/2001
Here it is, the latter half of January, and the obsession about how I failed her for yet another Christmas holiday continues on. As usual, I try to calm the situation, but quickly get frustrated and descend into patronizing replies which, obviously, do just the opposite.
Though there is a lot to despise about PEW's behavior, one of the top items was her choice to be mad for an inordinate amount of time. Sometimes, the period was predefined. She would literally tell me the day or date when she would decide to no longer be mad. That burned me up because much like everything else, I didn't understand the behavior. She does this to the children even today - and I can see how it has messed them up during certain incidents. How cold does one have to be when, in the face of a crying child who is apologizing for some transgression (real or imagined), you could look him in the face when he asks, "I'm really sorry mom, am I forgiven?" and the reply is, "No, you're not forgiven because I'm not ready yet!" Sick.
This was the year that, in an effort to ensure my sanity during the holidays, we made Christmas lists. I made sure I got her exactly everything on the list. Exactly. How exciting. I couldn't do anything wrong if I got exactly everything on her list. Of course, I also couldn't resist making a mistake. This year, it was getting her gift certificates for massages on top of exactly everything on her list. How dare I! Below is the continuation of an argument that undoubtedly started before I left for work.
PEW: and Thank you for making me feel guilty because I don't want someone other than a medical proffessional massaging my fat body. Thanks
LM: I'm not making you feel guilty. I said keep the two and get your pregnancy massage.
PEW: I don't want them
LM: Okay.
PEW: you use them
LM: I'll take them back. Get what you want. That's all. I just didn't quite appreciate you launching into the "don't ever get me any gifts ever" routine after I said, "keep them, and get your pregnancy massage or facial, too." I didn't think that telling you to keep them and get the pregnancy thing warranted that response. It made me feel bad.
------
You can't say I didn't try to diffuse the situation. The problem is, there I go again with the logic and reason. I always made that mistake, but by this time, you probably already realized that.
-----
PEW: we are broke. well I don't want you to buy me gifts anymore because you don't listen
LM: If I sell one of my collectibles for $200 - that means you can get a $60 massage. I bought you everything that you asked for. The massages I thought would be a nice extra and now you are being mean about it. I apologize for adding massages to the list. I don't want to argue about it. I will take them back, and you can get what it is that you want. I just didn't need to be made to feel bad about getting you those massages, which is what you did.
PEW: well when we're broke, every penny counts right. so why would you buy me something that I wont' be able to use for six months?
LM: Enough PEW. I was thinking about you needing a break from being home with two children. It's called "foresight." It's called "being spontaneous." When I saw the card in your OBs office, I thought it would be a nice gesture. My mistake.
-----
It doesn't take long for me to be knocked off track. I mean, how can one argue with the logic that if I sell things I've collected over the years in order to make everyone else's Christmas happy - I'm just inconsiderate and selfish? Clearly, I need help.
-----
PEW: well I'd rather choose my own gifts in the future, you are generous to a fault and usually I wind up resenting it because then I think about all the other things I could have done with the money
-----
Beautiful. Argument 1 - "We're broke." Argument 2 - "You're generous to a fault." Argument 3 - "I think about all the other things *I* could have done with the money." Oh, but it gets more bizarre.
-----
LM: 2 $30 massages is not "generous to a fault."
PEW: I want you to have the things that you want like Hockey games and equipment. yes it is when you are in our predicament
LM: Okay. I've had enough of this discussion. You're right and I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better now?
PEW: No it doesn't, I'm miserable, I'm depressed, I'm tired of trying to pretend like I'm happy. so sorry if your feelings are hurt, but too bad
-----
There she goes, satisfied that need to beat me into the dirt. We're not talking a simple knock-down. It's knock-down, knock-out, continue to kick me in the ribs while unconscious, spit on me, and then kick dirt on me. (Metaphorically speaking.) "Too bad." That's what sticks out to me there.
-----
LM: I know... you can't help yourself but to be mean. I appreciate it. I really do.
PEW: your the one that is mean
LM: I know. I was mean because I wanted to get you massages. I was mean when I spent $60 after selling $1,000 worth of my collectibles. I understand how that all makes sense. I apologize for being so awful and getting those massages. I don't know what came over me.
PEW: that makes sense when we're in all this debt and a baby on the way....yeah buy me something I will never use
LM: You're right.
PEW: do you know how upset a woman's body image is after having a baby
LM: How could I have been so offensive and inconsiderate.
PEW: why would I want a perfect stranger to see me practically naked
LM: The rudeness of it all. You're right.
-----
Now my reaction has clearly changed. I'm confident I didn't think that this attitude would help the situation.
-----
PEW: I told you I'd like to have a facial, a massage at the hospital, my nails done....
LM: Forgive me if I don't remember "massage at the hospital."
PEW: I asked you months ago if I could get one there
LM: Okay. If you say so. Look, I've already taken responsibility for being so horribly inconsiderate in my spontanaiety in picking up those massages. Is it necessary to continue to beat me down? I've apologized. I've said it is all my fault. I've said I'll take them back. Is there something else?
PEW: LM let's not act like we're all normal and stuff ok
LM: I know we're not "normal," I'd like to think that we are taking it one-day-at-a-time.
PEW: I'm depressed, i've lost my vision of the future....
LM: That's all.
PEW: that's pretty depressing
LM: I understand that.
PEW: well don't try to make me feel guilty because I want something for myself
LM: Somehow, I don't think that picking on me is going to help the situation.
PEW: I'm alot nicer to you than you deserve
-----
The scary thing is - she really believes that she is/was a lot nicer than I deserved. She still does.
-----
LM: I didn't make you feel guilty.
PEW: i'm not picking on you
LM: Stop saying that.
PEW: well don't say I'm picking on you, you're not a child
LM: I was upset that you decided to make me feel like a jerk for picking up those massages. that is what happened. I simply said "keep them and get the massage or facial that you want now." Then you started picking on me about getting them in the first place.
PEW: you're not a jerk for picking up the massages, but you could have said "would you rather have a massage, facial, or manicure"? $60 is ALOT of money to me
LM: Exactly how is that different from "keep them and get what you want now?"
PEW: because I'm not spending a dime on myself until our finances get better. not a dime
LM: That still doesn't explain how that is different from "what would you rather have?" I will sell one of my collectibles to pay for whatever you want now.
PEW: what collectibles?
LM: Otherwise, I won't sell them and we will be no different than when this conversation started. The ghosts. I want you to have a facial, a manicure, and a massage for all the work that pregnancy is. So, instead of me keeping those dolls, I'll sell them just for that purpose and be very, very happy and proud to have done it.
PEW: please....I just want my life back, I want to have a little bit of happiness for a change
LM: I know. Make a day of it or something?
PEW: No
-----
Of course not! Why do that when I can choose to be miserable and make your life a horror?
-----
LM: Get the whole trio. I don't get it. What is it that is the problem here? I can take back the 2 massages.
PEW: well the problem is that you won't be able to take them back
LM: We can use Ebay money without missing a payment beat so that you can get what you want. What is the problem? Even if I can't - it doesn't mean you can't get them.
PEW: yes it does, because we cannot afford it. we cannot afford it. I just want gifts that I want in the future
-----
We can't afford it, but she wants to spend it. If I spend it - on her - it's rude and inconsiderate. However, she can spend it and none of her logic used on me comes into play.
-----
LM: As I said... I gave you everything that was on your wish list. The massages were extra.
PEW: maybe someday when we have money if that day ever comes you can waste money on things that you want to give me
LM: And I find it very ungrateful of you that you would vilify me for getting them for you. It just isn't nice. Stop it. We won't miss a bill for that $60.
PEW: well being miserable isn't really conducive with being nice.....sorry
LM: We won't miss a bill if you get a facial, a manicure, and/or a massage at the hospital. Being miserable isn't an excuse for bashing me for doing something I thought was nice... sorry.
PEW: I'm sorry that i'm so miserable that I can't be happy that I got 2 gifts for christmas that I will never want to use
LM: I didn't ask you to be happy. I asked you not to be mean. There is a difference.
PEW: You know, for the past year and half, I've been trying to figure out what the rest of my life is going to be like, finally I was seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel, then this shit happened, now all I keep seeing is the pathetic lives of my mother or your mother....i'd like to be happy sometime in my life and I'd like to find it in more places than just playing with my children
PEW: you should try being pregnant and in my situation
LM: Unfortunately, I can't.
PEW: it's no fun I'll tell you that
LM: I could sit around and be miserable about our predicament, or take a step back and realize the value of what I have, and work to improve it.
PEW: well unfortunately I can't escape it, i'm here with S1 for 50 hours a week, then I'm here with you and S1 for the balance of that time..... i have not choice but to think about it. Especially when the days go by so slowly in the winter. and they go by even slower when your pregnant and broke
LM: We eat like king and queen and prince. We have better clothes than most people who are really "broke." We aren't BROKE, we have debt that is swallowing up our income. So there is little "extra" laying around.
PEW: well I don't mean broke....I mean no money to kill time with
LM: You need to stop making the situation sound so grave, when it simply isn't.
PEW: it is for me
LM: What would you do if you "had money?"
PEW: I don't know
LM: I mean... once the debt is gone, we have to start organizing in such a way that money is put away for educations and stuff like that. How can you not know?
PEW: i wouldn't spend as much time at home
LM: What would you do? You complain about it as if you knew that "if you had money, you would be doing 'X' instead." What do you friends with children do?
PEW: some go to the gym while their kids are in school.... it's not the lack of money ok. it's just being unhappy and not being able to see a light at the end of the tunnel
-----
She would just make up things on the fly. The rare times I did manage to get her focused on what she was saying or doing, I would get the result I was expecting - she had no idea what she was saying or why. That's a clear example. Almost anytime I gave her a reality check - the truth would cross her up. You could see it in her eyes and yet there was never any acknowledgement and worse - nothing I could do about it. It changed nothing.
-----
LM: Okay. I can comprehend that.
PEW: we can start putting away for educations when I go back to work, if we are still together, if we are not still together, our children will have to do it the hard way like we did
LM: Wonderful.
PEW: I still have to finish school too
LM: We can start putting money away when we make a reasonable budget and allocate money accordingly. True.
PEW: right. we'll see what happens, I can't comprehend S1's college when I don't even know what's going to happen in 2 months. I have no security in this life. none
LM: Okay.
-----
We wish you a Marry Christmas, we wish you a Merry Christmas, we wish you a Merry Christmas... but our wish won't come true!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Another Example of How States Help Themselves...
...while screwing so many others in the process.
I pay child support. I've always been current except when matters created fictional arrearages, afterwhich, I would immediately make a lump-sum payment to settle up the matters that were before the court (finalizing any changes in circumstances). I've prided myself on staying current whether I agree with the formula for calculating the number or not and whether she wasted the money or not. I've never been "put into enforcement" except by error on the part of domestic relations which was immediately corrected.
I hate wage garnishments. For me it would be like having a scarlet letter. "Can't be responsible enough to pay on your own, you gotta have it taken from you by the state gestapo!"
Unfortunately, given the pure genius that is the folks that find new and interesting ways to: collect more support than necessary, fraudulently puff up those who are "deadbeats" behind in their payments, and make their own jobs easier - the states will find a way to get into your business and, of course, fuck it all up.
The recently enacted law of my terrorland makes wage garnishment mandatory - whether you are behind in child support or not. If you're in the system - you have your wages garnished. That's the new rule. So much for the scarlet letter. Now we're all on garnishment. Not just those struggling to make a life for themselves while paying often incredibly high child support for the alleged "basic needs" of the children.
Additionally, they've taken to billing you a full month in advance rather than the old method of billing you according to your pay period. On the surface, that seems like a great idea. They're streamlining it. Everyone on the same cycle... well, all except for that "in advance" part.
Finally, they've enacted automatic support modification orders to your employer when something changes. Herein is where the complete clusterfuck takes flight...
I discover this because when the new order was put in place for my situation, it included an additional $20/month for "arrearages." Me? ARREARAGES?!?! CAN'T BE!!! I call and say, "Hey, dumb child support enforcement people! I'm current and I hereby demand you remove that $20 extra per month off of my order! That's a new scarlet letter which I have not yet earned the right to bear!"
Okay, that's not really a direct quote, but it does convey my disdain for the system. They check. Mister-M is correct! They will get right on it!
Then comes the letter a few days later in the mail. They will not issue a new support order removing the $20/month for arrearages because with the "new and improved" changes to the system, you're automatically in arrears because they bill you in full at the beginning of the month. I'm told when that is caught up, they will automatically issue a new order to the employer to modify the support order to remove the $20 for my fictional arrears.
So now, let's look at the genius that is these changes and just how many people this affects.
Facts:
Since they bill at the beginning of the month in full, unless your employer pays you in advance for the full month you're about to work, you're now in arrears. I don't think too many workers fall into that category.
- This means that excepting the people noted above, which is probably no people, everyone in my state is now in arrears at least some portion of every month. My guess that statistic will do wonders for the hysteria surrounding how many "deadbeats" there are. With the new system, that figure would be 100% at some point every month unless you've paid 2-months in child-support up front.
- This means that in order to never be in arrears, you have to pay 2-months in advance to keep from showing up in the system as having a balance on your account. It's not paid to the payee in advance. It does comes out of the pocket of the payor in advance. So, who benefits by having either the payor paying a full month in advance and/or by enforcing a fraudulent arrears add-on to the tune of $20/month times the tens of thousands of people - you guessed it! THE STATE!
- Not only does it overstate their necessary collections for which they get federal matching dollars having collected it; because it isn't paid out, all that money sitting in their coffers collects interest, too! So much for the "best interests of the children."
Wait! Here's the real genius of the "system." THE AUTOMATIC MODIFICATION ORDERS TO EMPLOYERS. Someone hit me with a real good guestimate of what this is costing the state and the employers to maintain this disaster:
The automatic order goes into effect and is sent to my employer's headquarters for administration. They do what they need to do to get it done. All nice and neat, right? Wrong.
- I'm billed (hypothetically, for the sake of round figures) $1,000/month in advance for my child support payments.
- I get paid twice per month, say... the 10th and the 25th of the month.
- I get $500 taken out each pay.
- My system account shows a $500 balance after the first check.
- My system account shows a $0 balance after the second check.
What happens?
The system sends out a support modification removing the $20/month arrearage. My HQ now has to jump through hoops and administrate the new support order, change everything in the computer system, update the records, change the payroll - everything that needs to be done.
If they don't follow the court order, there are stiff fines and penalties, etc.
What happens now?
February 1st rolls around and my system account bills me for $1000 in child support and puts me automatically in arrears. This triggers a new support order to add $20/month back into the order.
- By this time, my next paycheck is issued with new amount garnished.
- My HQ gets the new order, and has to put it through the system.
- I get $500 taken out each pay.
- My system account shows a $500 balance after the first check.
- My system account shows a $0 balance after the second check.
What happens?
This goes on every single day. This happens to me every single month. You have to believe every single employer has someone with a wage garnishment for child-support. They've streamlined the system and made it a nightmare for employers all over the state.
They're getting 2 orders per month to modify back and forth for arrearages that don't really exist.
Imagine how much it's costing the state to issue, re-issue, re-re-issue support modifications chasing down the fictional arrears? Imagine how much it's costing companies to do follow-through on these orders under the threat of fines and penalties, many for multiple employees every month?
In the meantime, they've upped their collection money which increases the state bonus from the feds. They've increased their interest by collecting all this money in advance without having to disburse it. They've padded the hysterical stats that radical feminists will use to support their contention that fathers are all willfully failing to pay child-support while floating around the marina in their yachts and taking their 20-something girlfriend(s) clubbing every night in their Bentley.
Everyone else is running around like maniacs trying to cover the asses of those who made these changes that benefit no one but the state.
When I discussed this with the clearly frustrated CSDU clerk, she said simply, "I know this is a disaster. We have so many companies calling and complaining about it but there is nothing we can do."
Except keep on collecting the cash.
Monday, January 28, 2008
When Should the Children Have a Say?
We get and welcome feedback of any sort from those of you who stop by for a visit. In addition to the feedback we receive directly in the comments to posts, we also receive email and plenty of it! Great! Every so often, we come across something that merits some extra attention. This feedback is one that rises to the level of a response in order to tighten up some loose ends as well as provide more education as to who we're dealing with and why we deal with her in the manner we do.
Reader Writes: So, i've read the entire blog thus far... and I have to say, your ex-wife is ONE crazy bitch.
I'm on your side, I'm with you... but I just have to ask... what DID the boys want that holiday? Did they WANT to spend New Years with their Mom? I know she's a total asshole, but to a child, their mother is their mother...
This is not an uncommon thought. Unfortunately, the reality that many people fail to understand is that children of 6 and 9 don't get a "say" in where they will spend custodial time in the aftermath of a divorce. That is, at least not in a divorce as incredibly contentious as this one has been. You won't often see someone say, "well, to a child, their father is their father." I know that there is some disconnect as we try to mesh history with current events, but you've read relevant material to the question you've asked and I'm left to wonder if you understood how the holiday schedule for this year came about? Keep in mind, aside from her custodial interference from the Christmas of 2006 (for which she was found guilty of contempt of court resulting in the 2007 holiday schedule), there have been prior issues of interference as well. I hadn't had a Christmas Holiday with my children since 2003 - prior to our split.
I wonder if anyone asked if the children wanted to spend a holiday with their father?
The most important thing at issue here is this - you don't "ask the children" who they want to spend their time with, at least, not at this age. The absolute worst thing you could do is put your children in a position to have to "choose" one parent over another (regardless of how you may personally feel about the other parent). There is a set schedule for a reason - to offer some semblance of stability in the unstable environment that is the aftermath of a divorce. It is of paramount importance to keep them shielded from the issues that take place between the grown-ups. You give them every available opportunity to let them just be kids without being unnecessarily thrust into the ongoing issues between mom and dad.
Understanding that it took more than 3-years and my entire life savings just to obtain 50/50 custody and offer them at least some semblance of a normal household and meaningful time with me, their father, who was heavily involved in every aspect of their lives prior to being forced out by a malicious mother - putting the decision of when and how long they spend time with me in anyone else's hands is not something I will do in the foreseeable future.
Reader writes: I hope everyone's not getting caught up in the fight. True, she uses insanity and all out anger to get at you, but you use coldness and technicalities to get a rise out of her. They may seem like defense mechanisms, but it seems as though they're doubling as attacks as well...
Addressing two issues - "coldness" and "technicalities." What I am is not cold, it's professional. If you know anything about dealing with a borderline personality, any deviation from the absolute minimum to address only issues pertaining to the children - is asking for trouble.
I'm at a loss to understand how following the order to the letter is a "technicality." On the contrary, it's an absolute necessity. Failure to follow the order to the letter and deviating from it opens your generosity up to unlimited exploitation and manipulation by the BPD. You've seen only a small portion of the failures that took place in the relationship. You can see how fast the BPD drags many irrelevant issues making a standard disagreement to any normal couple into a thermonuclear explosion of devastating proportions.
Following the order and expecting her to follow the order - is not an attack. It is actually avoidance of attacks. Following the rules should never be considered an attack. Failure to follow the rules - is. The only parent who has repeatedly and methodically failed to follow the rules - is The PEW.
Reader writes: I just wonder though, if you shouldn't talk a little more about how the kids are doing with all of this... so that it wouldn't sound like they're not a factor. I feel for you and I give you credit, my father-in-law abandoned his children because his ex-wife was bipolar and was TOO difficult to deal with to see them; I just wonder what they want. I know it's hard for young children to want what's right... they likely enjoy the gameboy more than the hikes for now...
What the children want(ed) was for their family and parents to not split up. Unfortunately, that was mom's decision and honestly, not one I regret her making at all. Life in that house for all of us was hell. I do feel bad that I cannot shield them from her behavior more than the 50% I currently have them, but who knows what the future holds?
It's an excellent point and one we've talked about at length. We have decided to discuss how the kids are faring with issues only when they are directly affected. The kids are actually faring well. S1 is an emotional character. He is overweight by some 30-pounds which bothers him. He continues to do quite well in school (with a few behavioral issues which are improving). S2 is a "happy-go-lucky" boy with a bit of a devious streak (not uncommon for a boy of that age). He is also doing well in school and so far appears to be adjusting well (some attentiveness and goof-off issues in school which are being addressed). Overwhelmingly, while they have some issues that are easily attributable to destruction of their family, so far they are doing quite well.
When it is relevant we do give the children a choice. For instance, while we haven't yet written about the issues of Summer 2007, at one point they had a weekend where they were supposed to be back with Psycho Mom at the same time swimming championships were going on. While we believed it was paramount that S1 participate as he had worked extremely hard all summer to qualify, the decision was left up to him as his mother refused to drive down so he could see her and attend championships (something we would have done for our children, but PEW often doesn't choose things based on what is best for the children, instead choosing what is easiest for her.) He chose to go home for the weekend and his decision was honored. We can guarantee that if he had chosen to stay with us he would be been emotionally terrorized by his mother, she's done it before, which is why we very rarely ask him to make a choice like that. He knows he is safe no matter what he chooses with us, but he does not have that same belief about his mother, he knows he will be punished if she believes he likes us better. On the flip side, there have been the rare instance where I have given up a day or two to which we've been entitled so that one or the other can attend a special event that conflicted with the custody schedule, such as a fishing tournament in which my oldest enjoys participating.
As for the "gameboy" - I won't relent. When at mom's - their days are filled almost exclusively with television and computer games. There is little, if any, interpersonal interaction and it shows in their lacking social skills. The interaction they do have with neighborhood children is primarily with their neighbor's kids - who are just downright scary (stories for another day). They don't often play well with others. S9 is a sore loser when it comes to board games and such. Both are in need of improvement in the areas of interacting well with others. It's not a crisis, don't get me wrong, but if some of these core issues aren't turned around soon, it will make for a very rough middle- and high-school experience.
Bottom line is - they get more than enough (bad) television and computer games for the both of us while at PEW's home. In our home, reading, physical activities, board games or other activities which involve personal interaction with other people are the order of most days.
Reader writes: Just asking: are their needs equally important making and following court appointed rules? ...
Their needs are most important to me. I can't speak for the court. We follow the rules of the court because it has been proven time and time again - without them, the chaos and terror that the PEW can unleash reigns supreme... and this will be demonstrated over and over and over again.
- Calling the police on us for no reason, resulting in the children being seen and questioned by them (from several states away).
- A false allegation of child abuse which saw our entire family interrogated by Child Protective Services... which had the children crying, fearing being taken away from us (both mine AND DW's).
- No fewer than a half-dozen false contempt-of-court petitions filed against me by her - all unfounded and summarily dismissed (yet, she still has yet to be sanctioned for making sworn falsification to authorities...)
- Repeated instances of custodial interference.
I bend over backwards to shield the children from these goings-on and never speak poorly of their mother in front of the children. Doing so would be horrible for them. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for either her or her family members, and we manage that the best we can.
Reader, your interesting and tough questions are welcomed. Here's hoping the replies give you, and others, a little more food for thought as they relate to our situations. Maybe they'll help yours, too.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Book Review: Stop Walking On Eggshells
Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care about Has Borderline Personality Disorder
by Authors: Paul T. Mason and Randi Kreger
----------
After having read this amazingly insightful book which gives a methodical look into the root causes of borderline personality disorder and the associated effects it has on the sufferer's life and those who have attempted to have relationships with them, I am put in a position to present two separate reviews of Stop Walking On Eggshells
Authors Mason and Kreger likely could not have done better in breaking down borderline personality disorder; from its origins in the patient's childhood through the chaos and terror that they suffer and perpetrate on others into and throughout adulthood. They provide invaluable information to the reader by identifying the behaviors, symptoms, and traits of the borderline person. Mason and Kreger do a terrific job of breaking down the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria into understandable language. If you have a relationship of any kind with a person suffering from BPD, this book could be considered second-to-none in helping you understand why they behave the way they do. Having suffered for more than 12-years (ongoing in the aftermath of divorce with children) – it was somewhat of a relief to find out that I really wasn’t going insane. I was not the cause of her drama and chaos. My often intense level of confusion left me questioning my own mental health and, at times, what was reality. Of particular interest where the excerpts of the thoughts and feelings of both the BPD and non-BPD throughout this book. If you've suffered such intense abuse at the hands of a BPD, their "thoughts" about how they feel and how they should be treated or understood can be a bit unnerving. Conversely, you will find some measure of relief as the non-BPDs recount their feelings and experiences.
In that regard, this book is a must-have if you need a comprehensive understanding of the person you've encountered who is or may be suffering from borderline personality disorder.
The second part of my review must be read with consideration that I've had a long-term and ongoing relationship with a now ex-spouse who I strongly suspect of suffering from BPD. I say that simply because she has never been professionally diagnosed.
If you've had any level of experience with a BPD sufferer, there is a lot in this book that will strike you as "easier said than done." Worse, it might make you feel as the BPD made you feel - like you aren't or weren't good enough to handle the situation that confronted you so intensely. You may be offended.
Perhaps I was expecting a more sympathetic view towards the non-borderline and what I was met with were suggestions and coping mechanisms that were without a true sense of the level of suffering that has been levied upon the non-BPD. If this is you - the way in which these suggestions are delivered could rise to the level of offensive. If this is not you, it will be viewed with a vastly different understanding. The difficulty in practical application of these techniques is something that you couldn't possibly fathom without having been "in the trenches" yourself. Offering a BPD's viewpoint about how a non-BPD should be more understanding of their suffering and how to better handle them is tantamount to a perpetrator of torture telling their victim to understand better why they do what they do and how to accept it.
I strongly believe that Paul Mason and Randi Kreger needed to do a better job of conveying to readers that the "matter of fact" delivery of suggested methods of dealing with a borderline are impractical in day-to-day application and virtually impossible to achieve with a BPD when you are "under fire." I know that this description sounds dramatic, but those who have been there would understand that language completely. I know psychologists who refuse to work with people having borderline personality disorder because of their level of chaotic, terroristic, and incredibly manipulative behavior. To expect an untrained person to handle it well under the circumstances is unrealistic. I also understand that there are those who don't necessarily have a choice to avoid dealing with a BPD, for example, parents of a child with BPD. For those folks, these suggestions could prove to be a life preserver of sorts.
Overall, for a complete understanding of the development of borderline personality disorder, the impact on the sufferer, and the impact on those around the sufferer, this book should be at or near the top of your list.
~LM