Custody Evaluation #2 - Impressions & Observations of PEW and LM
Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.
For some background information leading up to the report that came from our 2nd custody evaluation:
We used the same court-ordered and court-connected Custody Evaluations, Inc. for this evaluation and I’ve already detailed how the custody evaluation process allegedly works from our first journey through this process.
On to the actual experience before moving onto the conclusion.
There were 7 sessions which all took place over the course of May 2005, since we paid for a compacted evaluation. PEW was seen individually first. I was seen individually in session 2. We were seen together in session 3. Session 4 was a split session, with each of us being seen with the children. Sessions 5 and 6 were both joint sessions. Session 6 was a session with DW as a significant collateral party. Session 7 was a final joint session. For the record, due to alleged financial issues, PEW refused to pay her portion of the collateral contact (DW) as required. In an effort to avoid any delays, I paid for it in full.
This time there were 7 total hours, only 50-minutes of which are you actually interacting with the evaluator (if you’re lucky) - and, as I previously have lamented, this person passes a judgment on the both of you as parents and hands down a “recommendation” based upon their wealth of experience and alleged expertise. You could even pare it down further. 3-hours each. In 3-hours, you pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of having this “expert” ask you a few questions, watch you interact with your children for 10 minutes, listen to your psycho ex spew completely unfounded and totally unsupported false allegations against you, you defend yourself and explain your position calmly and rationally, and then they pass their judgment. You’re told by our attorney that the court “takes their recommendations very seriously and almost always goes with what they recommend.”
This time, would be slightly different. Gloria didn’t buy into PEW’s in-session performances at all. When faced with her hysterics and crying jags, Gloria sat and listened stoically. When PEW was done (and sometimes even when not) - she would ask her questions that went right to the heart at whatever issue she was bringing up. As most of her drama was embellished or outright lies, it was really tough for PEW to answer questions which would meaningfully support her claims. It was clear that she was unprepared to back up her lies with more lies - she didn’t have to in the first evaluation. It gave me cautious optimism that this evaluator was quite a bit more on-the-ball than Sonya was.
Since the rules “prohibit” either party, who pays for this evaluation, to have a copy of it - you’re only permitted to review it in your attorney’s office and take notes. I believe that this rule is more self-protection for Custody Evaluations, Inc. and the entire one-hand-washing-the-other racket that is the automatic recommendation by the County Court to the County run CE program is completely unethical… but I digress. I took notes. I wrote the important and most pertinent parts of the report verbatim, following the rules.
THE SMALL STUFF:
The report confirms that our schedule was, for the most part since the physical split, and an agreed-upon interim schedule of me having the children every other weekend from Friday night until Sunday evening. It confirms that the father petitioned for simply “a modification of custody.” <<< I highlight this point because it will play an important role in our hearing to be held in July of 2005.
THE DETAILS (Parents’ Current Issues & Concerns):
- Mother: PEW believes that the commute to LM’s home on alternate weekends is too stressful for the children. She is requesting that one of the father’s partial physical custody periods be held in [her locality]. PEW believes that it will be too stressful for S2 to be separated from her for long periods during the summer break from school and is requesting a summer custody arrangements of 2-weeks-on/2-weeks-off.
- Father: LM believes that the children need regular and consistent contact with him and requests he continue with partial physical custody in [his locality] on alternate weekends during the school year. He is requesting that the schedule be reversed during the summer months and that PEW have alternate weekends during the summer months.
My observations: PEW plays the poor children being away from her card quite readily. Of course, nevermind S1. She’s just concerned about S2. Additionally, the usual “control factor” as she impresses upon the evaluator that she demands that one of my 2 custodial periods per month during the school year. This is “all about her” disguised as concerns for S2. An early sign of “splitting,” perhaps?
This is where Gloria makes her first mistake. My petition was for primary custody. Her documentation of our significant discussion about the forthcoming summer schedule makes it seem as though that was the whole of the issue. It wasn’t. Remember all of the details I provided about our harrowing summer of 2005? Well, seeing as how our custody evaluation took place in May, we were trying to get that part of the raging debate settled, too.
THE DETAILS (Outline of “Best Interests” Issues):
- What is the nature of the childrens’ bonds with each parent?
- How have the children adjusted to the loss of weekly contact with their father since March of 2005?
- Would the children be able to tolerate long-term separation from their mother during the summer months?
It was easy to identify on page 2 of the report, that primary custody for me wasn’t going to be. Why? There was simply no mention of it!
THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - Mother):
(Details about PEW’s age and other vital statistics, work location, details of her short-duration first-marriage.)
Mother is the 2nd of 4 children. [Dad's age and work details]. She reported that during her childhood, her father would be absent from the home for several days approximately every six months and she later learned that he had a problem with alcohol. Despite these separations, she reported that she was proud of his business accomplishments and remains close to him. [Mother's age and work details]. PEW stated that her mother continues to be of significant support to her and the children. In addition to her mother, PEW has a sister who has been helpful to her as well. Psycho-SIL was diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder some time ago and has a history of alcohol abuse. PEW reported that her sister has been free from all non-prescribed substances for approximately 6-months. In the past, during her sister’s mental health or alcohol relapses, PEW stated that she has had to distance herself from her. The family has been supportive to PEW’s sister and at the time of PEW’s session, her sister resided with her parents. On or about [May date, 2005], PEW moved into her new home and advised that her sister will be living with her to provide financial assistance and support with the children. Believing thath her sister’s recovery is strong, PEW added that her parents will allow her sister to return to their home if problems arise. Her younger brothers [ages], reside [in their respective localities] and have contact with the family also.
PEW reported her health to be good and that her pregnancies and deliveries were relatively normal. She not breast-feed either child and reported that they reached their developmental milestones on-time. Both children were late to move from diapers and S2 continues with bed-wetting episodes. She reported that S2’s behavior has worsened since Father’s move to [his locality], ostensibly due to the separation from him and the long commutes to his home.
PEW reports that she had no drug, alcohol, or gambling addictions and stated that her driving license is clear. She moved into a 4-bedroom single family home in May 2005.
Hmmm, where to begin…
- Growing up, dad disappears for days at a time and is an alcoholic.
- Her sister, who is a help to her, is a diagnosed bi-polar with major substance abuse issues, and if she goes off the deep end while living with PEW and the kids, well, provided she doesn’t kill anyone, Mom and Dad will just take her back and continue to ignore and perpetuate Psycho-SIL’s problems.
- There’s the first indication of Psycho-SIL paying rent to help with the costs of the home at the risk of the children.
- She’s already laying the blame regarding S2’s behavior solely at my feet, despite the reality that the boys tended to act up anytime I wasn’t around, married and unmarried, and it’s actually due “ostensibly” to the fact that PEW can’t parent effectively. The boys simply didn’t act up but a fraction of the number of times in my company alone (or PEW and I together, when married) as they did when they were with her alone at any time since their birth. This continues to this day.
The biggest problem that I have with this entire report, and this section specifically - was that Psycho-SIL’s living with PEW and the boys was a MAJOR bone of contention during the last sessions with Gloria. Gloria became quite upset when she discovered that PEW LIED TO HER about Psycho-SIL living with her. LIED. Gloria found out about Psycho-SIL living with them during her alone-session with the boys! The children told Gloria that she was already living with them! I didn’t even know that until Gloria dropped that bomb on us at the very next joint session. Gloria emphatically and openly declared that she was going to highlight that “omission” in her report and we spent a great deal of time discussing Psycho-SIL’s uncontrolled condition, nevermind her substance abuse issues. Yet, after all of that drama and discussion about the risk to the children “WHEN” (Gloria’s words) Psycho-SIL had a setback, not “IF” show up in the report as you see above. It was as big a punch-in-the-face to me as the shock that was the totality of the first custody evaluator’s report. The above documentation of that situation not only wasn’t reality - it was about as far a cry from what Gloria spoke to us both about as cries can get.
Notice also, the lies about Psycho-SIL being drug and alcohol free “for the last 6 months.” That’s the same bullshit story she lied to Sonya about (custody evaluator #1). 6 months prior to this evaluation would take us back to the first custody evaluation, where Psycho-SIL was allegedly “drug and alcohol free for 6 months” and her recovery was “strong.”
Isn’t it interesting how PEW spends so much time talking about the disordered members of her family and excuse-making and honoring and helping them, while the two normal members of her family, her brothers, garner barely a cursory mention? It reminds me of the “methinks thou doth protest too much” quote.
So much for the best interests of the children.
THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - Father):
(Details about LM’s age and other vital statistics, work location, educational history, details of her short-duration first-marriage.)
Father is the 2nd of 4 sons both to his parents; his father is [age and location] and his mother is [age and location]. His parents divorced when he was 16 years old and reported that he was estranged from his father for 2 years, blaming him for the divorce. LM and his younger brothers were brought into their parents’ litigation, and it was at that time that he reconciled with his father - “I saw that my mother wasn’t completely truthful on the stand,” he added. He now maintains a close relationship with both parents and stated “My father was always there for me.” He views his mother as very devoated to he and his brothers and her grandchildren. He has three brothers [ages and locations] and stated the the family is together for most holidays.
LM regarded his health to be relatively good. Not of his volition, he has lost 25-pounds over the last year due to what he believes to be the stress of divorce. He has no drug, alcohol, or gambling addictions and stated that his driving license is clear. On [June Date, 2005] he moved to a single-family 4 bedroom home in [home state] with DW. Prior to that, they shared a townhouse.
Other than the fact that she had my educational circumstances incorrect - this was a fairly accurate representation of our discussion about me.
In the next segment, I’ll share the impressions and observations of the children and DW.
