More About Me...

The Psycho Ex Wife is the true account of a marriage, divorce, and subsequent custody fight between a loving man, his terroristic ex-wife who we suspect suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder (at least from our armchair psychologist diagnosis), and the husband's new partner. We are not simply anti-mother or pro-father ... Read more

Why Talk About It...

The site is intended to help people in similar situations. I have always felt like no one really knew or quite understood the level of chaos that had existed in my life, and this is a way to express it all without burdening personal friends and family with such horrors ... Read More

Archive: contempt

Litigitosis

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.

My family often marvels about how much time I have to spend in court and doing court-related activities like conferences, evaluations, etc.  I often marvel, too.  One of my family members surmised that the amount of litigation that the psycho ex-wife puts us through is a new disease.  Thusly, he coined the name of the new disease as:

LITIGITOSIS

I still laugh at the way the word sounds as it rolls off of the tongue.  Litigitiosis.  Essentially, litigitosis is a disease of excessive frivolous and vexatious litigation.  PEW has severe litigitosis.  At this time, there is no cure and we’re not sure that there will ever be one because the Family Court players pay a lot of money to the pharmaceutical companies to not research and develop medication for this disease.  There is too much money to be made from excessive frivolous and vexatious litigation and personality disorders are the engine that powers the money making machine.

PEW would project, errr… I mean have other people believe, through her innate ability to spin a yarn, that I am the excessive litigant.  Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, that’s simply not true.

(more…)

Childcare Situation that Led to Contempt of Court, Part 2

The thrilling conclusion continuing from Part I on the childcare situation that was part of the 2007 contempt of court matter…  we continue to trade emails and accomplish absolutely nothing, as we were prone to do in the high-contact days of 2006…

LM,

Please call Neighbor at 1-XXX-GUNSFORKIDS She is one of the sweetest people I’ve ever known….or even better maybe you could sit down with her on friday for a little bit and discuss whatever concerns are bothering you……PLEASE

~PEW

Uhhhh, no.

PEW,

I’m not going to continue to do this contentious dance with you.

You can’t stick to any agreement nor order. That much is clear. We had an agreement that is in accordance with the orders, and you have violated that and are immediately being uncooperative in putting things back the way they were.

So, I will contact [attorney] accordingly about your refusal to put S2 back into the agreed-upon childcare facility of YOUR choosing - AUCF, and do what is necessary to make that happen.

~LM

Oh, yes I am gonna continue this dance! I’m a rockhead!

LM,

I am agreeing to look at alternatives. If you want to make it happen quicker then you’ll have to make some phone calls. I did not “choose” AUCF….how was I supposed to know, having never driven there in rush hour traffic that it would take me almost a half hour to get there and a half hour from there to work? I just assumed if it was set up by the district it must be logistically feasible….BUT IT ISN’T…..they even agreed with me when I called the district about how ridiculous it is that there is only ONE location for AM CARES.

Let me know what alternatives you come up with. I am not obligated by the court order to immediately take him back to AUCF. It says “or agreed upon license day care facility”. Find one that we can agree on. I don’t have time to make a million phone calls…..

~PEW

She keeps saying this despite the fact that it was working perfectly fine right up until the time she found a way to shave the overall costs of childcare that was rolled into the child support order by placing S2 with Neighbor. Talk about transparent.  The next one shocks me…

(more…)

Childcare Situation that Led to Contempt of Court, Part 1

And so it continued, in 2006, it was one mad email exchange between two knuckleheads after another.  The court re-affirmed that the children were to be put in the agreed-upon childcare facility after PEW pulled them out the first week of the school year and placed them with her neighbor.  This, of course, occurred after a child support order was put in place that accounted for the costs of the agreed-upon child care facility - a figure she would later claim (falsely) she was paying the neighbor to watch S2.  The ink wasn’t even dry on the order and she informed me that she was filing a “motion for reconsideration” on the childcare issue.  This was the week following the hearing.  Soon thereafter, she classically flip-flopped and, of course, I would go right along for the latest email rollercoaster ride…

LM,

I’m not filing a petition for reconsideration, because I can’t afford it. But here is what I am going to do. I am going to list out for you all the reasons why Neighbor’s is best and why going to [Agreed-Upon Childcare Facility (AUCF) is NOT:

Going to Neighbor's:
1. S2 loves going there.
2. He can take a nap in the morning if he's still tired.
3. Neighbor's son is our son's best friend and they play together all morning. They get along great.
4. Neighbor takes him to the bus stop, right outside of her house.
5. Neighbor gives him individual attention and affection that he would not be getting at AUCF.
6. He now loves kindergarten, whereas before going to Neighbor's he was crying everyday when I dropped him off and everyday when I picked him up. (ask S1, it was horrible)
7. He gets to eat a "hot lunch" at Neighbor's at least twice a week, instead of the usual cold sandwich.
8. It's only for 7 more months.

Going AUCF:
1. He would have to get dropped off earlier, making his day a 10 hour day instead of the current arrangement of 5 hrs. (stressful for a five year old)
2. He cried everyday and was extremely tired every night.
3. S1 would have to be enrolled in before care because he wouldn't be able to take the bus at 8:20 due to the fact that S2 would need to be dropped off at 8 so that I could be in work on time.
4. Additional costs due to "before care" for both kids.
5. I would have to wake both of the kids up ealier in order to get out of the house on time.

Be reasonable LM....put aside your absolute hatred of me for one second and consider making a gesture of goodwill here towards your sons.

~PEW

"Be reasonable, LM" = Do what I say now that I've unilaterally changed things for the millionth time. Not acquiescing to my demands = being unreasonable. Only in the mind of a PEW... followed by...

LM,

I've been thinking more about this. If your intent is to file contempt charges against me, then I'll look into putting S1 in a licensed facility in [Mytown]….Not AUFC though because the distance is just not feasible. The order says something like “agreed upon” licensed facility, right?…..so I’ll look into a few and get back to you with some names and we can decide which one you want him to go to. That’s the option here…..AUFC is not one of the options.

I gotta tell you though, if that’s what you are going to force me to do….. you’re doing the WRONG thing. S2 is quite happy and healthy where he is.

~PEW

This is a common trait of a PEW. You must remember that this was, in fact, an agreed-upon childcare facility. This facility was actually chosen by PEW. The children went there all summer long while she had the same work schedule. The children started off the school year there and it was incorporated into the child support number. This was all about her pocketing the difference between what the actual cost of AUCF was and the lesser amount (later proven in court) she was paying to neighbor. Again, when we talk about the projection of accusations, particularly when it comes to something being “all about the money” - there is no mistake - it is her and she had been doing this for 2 years (at the time).

Further, in keeping with common PEW traits, you’ll notice that ANY facility is now okay with her, except the one we agreed to. How often do I talk about PEW’s either never agreeing to any settlement offer on any issue or reneging on agreements that you rarely actually have happen or flat-out disregard orders to stick to agreements? Just another example folks.

PEW,

I think [Neighbors] are very, very nice people. That said, their children are out of control, despite your ongoing assertions to the contrary. I grow tired of listening to S1 tell me stories about how [Older Neighbor Kid (ONK)] constantly is BEATING on not only his own brother, but on our S2 as well. It’s no wonder they behave the way they do and still engage in physical confrontations with one another, others, and at school. I have no idea what kind of movies or games they are playing, but I am still disturbed by the fact that every time I come over there… [ONK] is “armed to the teeth” with toy firearms and when he is not shooting me and others, is showing off his substantial arsenal. I still haven’t been told the types of video games they have despite repeated requests. The list goes on.  Their children are BAD (at least ONK) and the potential negative influence on ours is already evident. I once asked S1, “well what does [their Mom] do when ONK is hitting the kids?” He said, “Oh, she beats him.”

Great.

I don’t want them being watched by [Neighbors], and it is nothing personal. It is about “giving a shit” (as you so eloquently put it) about the boys. It’s not an environment that I want the children spending MORE time in than they already do. He’s tired in the morning because you don’t put either child in bed at a reasonable hour. Try 8PM, like they should be going to bed every night.

Now, as far as AUCF, I simply don’t believe you. I think S2 puts on the show for you because, as I have always maintained, that’s an act that he ONLY DOES FOR YOU. Always has and always will unless you put a stop to it. When I spoke to S2 about his time at beforecare and aftercare and he always told me he enjoyed it and the things he would do while there. Never once did he ever tell me he hated it. The fact remains that the only reason that you pulled him out was to pocket the money and I wish you would stop with the fiction that you’re paying [Neighbor] “the same amount” as the childcare facility… particularly when you spent so much time complaining about what the nanny was paid when what you ALLEGEDLY paid [Mrs. JM] and [Neighbor] (when factored out to a 5-day week) was FAR MORE money for FAR LESS time with the children than Nanny.

Please, stop lying.

Finally, I ask you to read the things you write… because most of this is about financial and logistical convenience for you, NOT the children - quite surprisingly, parroting the same issues I’ve brought up to you when it comes to travel and exchanges… and you haven’t done a single thing to make life easier on THE CHILDREN (even where their safety is concerned) since you started these things rolling.

So, there is your answer. If you want to send me a reply, feel free… I won’t address it any further.

It’s AUCF or some other equally qualified facility. I suggest you do so rather quickly as I am considering a petition to the courts for modification of support, even if it is just for the credit I’m owed since you pulled S2 out of the agreed-upon childcare facility. I also find it interesting (and I’m sure that the court will, too) that S1 didn’t previously need “beforecare” and you now use this threat to continue to try to be manipulative.

I don’t have “total hatred” for you, actually - it is you who is driven by hate and revenge. If you would simply do what has been ordered and/or agreed to, there would be no contentiousness… but as always - you are constantly looking for the next thing to be combative about. You need to stop it sooner rather than later.

~LM

Even today, I still roll my eyes at myself when I write “I will not address it any further” because we all know by now (at least back in the day) that it was a near impossibility.

(more…)

Custody Evaluation #1 - Impressions & Observations, Mister-M

Continuing from Impressions & Observations, The PEW - comes the CE’s report on me.

Discussion of Mister-M:

The father presents with appropriate concerns about the children. He tends to be an intense individual who has some issues with control. This was evidenced by his request to have sole decision-making for the children.

There is no bias against a father here. I request primary custody (physical & legal) and I am an intense individual with control issues. However, PEW’s petition for sole custody, it would seem, does not make her an intense individual with control issues. Keep in mind now, my petition was a counter- to PEW’s initiation of this entire court & custody mess.  From the outset, I was the only one who made overtures and arrangements for a shared-custody situation.  It was PEW who scuttled that in June of 2004.

The father does appear to have a temper when angry with the mother; however, he is patient with the children, and I do not believe he would lose his temper with the children as he does with the mother.

On what basis, exactly, does the custody evaluator come to that conclusion? It doesn’t make sense. If I was this obvious monster to their mother, why wouldn’t I be the same monster to the children if they didn’t do as I demanded?

Folks, you only have my word on this, but I promise you as the good Lord above as my witness - this is a complete fabrication. At NO TIME did I EVER lose my temper in any of these sessions. On 1 occasion, I showed ‘controlled exasperation and impatience’ having to sit there in silence while the PEW went on and on and on with her false allegations while the CE (and I) sat and listened. I simply asked how long I was going to have to sit and entertain this reading of the list of accusations none of which could the PEW ever support as factual.

The only other time I showed any level of emotion was on the oft-repeated discussion of *my* unwillingness to settle the house. Without any anger, I turned to her and asked, “I’ve made 3 offers to you that were more than fair and each more lucrative than the next. Exactly how many offers have you made to settle the matter?” (The answer was none.) I asked her to stop lying about it and didn’t raise my voice or show anger. I was well aware of the pitfalls of a male getting too emotional in any capacity in a situation like that. In fact, I feared I might be *too* calm or stoic.

That the CE would portray me like this doesn’t surprise me today, though it really did at the time. It’s clear, now, the agenda here. Still, I was so utterly disheartened by the reality that PEW’s histrionics were not even mentioned once, though she raised her voice, pointed at me emphatically while reading from her lie-list, and was insistent on her fantasy that she and the children were systematically abused by me in any number of ways.

Most county custody evaluation programs are exempt from being called to testify regarding their reports. They can write whatever the hell they want and there is nothing you can do about it.

The father was initially interested in continuing the joint physical custody arrangement as long as he had sole decision making for the children. In particular, wanted to be able to decide where the children attended school. However, the father became very frustrated when the mother did not respond positively to a couple of different financial settlement proposals he made. As the father became more frustrated by this, his anger toward the mother increased. The level of contentiousness over the financial issues made it difficult for both parents to remain focused on the custody matter, and to co-parent at the time. It is my impression that these frustrations led the father to become more critical of the mother’s parenting and to raise concerns about her parenting.

Initially?  Not only initially, but eventually at the end, too.  Remember, the CE asked us to come up with shared custody parenting plans in each of the last two sessions.  I did that, the “well-prepared” PEW didn’t.  She refused to.  She had no interest in it.

As far as the rest, it simply did not happen. It didn’t. We had a short disagreement over who wasn’t cooperating with whom regarding the settlement talks. It didn’t last very long and I asked PEW some pointed questions that she was simply unable to answer without exposing herself as the uncooperative one (though it should be patently obvious to any reasonable human being looking at who is making offers and who is not). The CE has me apparently a complete rage over the issue and her “impression” is that my concerns over PEW’s stability and parenting ability are fabricated and only exist because PEW wouldn’t settle on the house. That’s what this had boiled down to. This, after refusing to review any of the real, serious documented issues that I had come prepared to share. This, after accepting PEW’s hysterical, crying rants on her word alone.

It remains to be seen if the father is able to remain in the marital residence when a financial settlement is is reached between the parties. He would like to do so in order to provide the children with some stability at a time when they are adjusting to so many changes in their lives. The father initially supported the mother’s decision to put S1 in parochial school when they were still together. However, he believes that the children would do just as well in public school, and that at this time there was a benefit to S1 attending school with children from the neighborhood. The father is able to provide the children with a stable home. However, his work schedule makes him less available for the children than the mother during the school week.

Well, with a report like this, she all but guaranteed that it would not happen.

Her comment regarding my supporting the mother’s decision is a complete lie. Not only did I never claim any such thing, quite the contrary. The mother supported the decision for the children to attend public school. The fact was, the public school system is better. The fact was, even if together, the tuition costs for Catholic School was a burden our budget would be unable to bear. The fact was, I stated these reasons and more and it led to the decision in my favor during the court hearing on the subject back in the summer of 2004.  The fact was, PEW actually took care of registering the boys for public school on February 4th, 2004 - AFTER initiating divorce proceedings - because we both agreed that it was the best choice and the best school.  She only reversed course months later at the beginning of the summer.

As for the work schedule, I already had proof that my schedule was rather flexible.  The kids would be at school for most of the day!  What benefit to the children is there for PEW to be home while the kids are at school?  How would my being at work while the kids are at school be any different?  I would be home.  I would cook dinner for them.  I would care for them.  I would bathe them.  I would do all the things a loving single parent does for their children with a great deal of success - as I had done all throughout their lives on this earth to that point (and since then).   The differences in my work schedule and PEW’s work schedule were completely irrelevant to the children except that PEW’s work schedule would make her completely unavailable during the longest periods of time where she could spend it with them one-on-one - the weekends!  PEW would be home when the children mostly weren’t during the week and then completely unavailable for any weekend.  This was beneficial for the children?  I both worked and lived not longer than a 3-minute drive from their school and with the blessing of my workplace (as already shown in the months prior to the evaluation) could adjust my schedule and accommodate any special need that may arise involving my children.  My work schedule made me far more available to the children than PEW’s could ever hope to! The evaluator just made up her own bullshit as she went along.

My destruction is complete. The solid, concrete foundation of my destruction is thick with lies and embellishments and all part of what is usual and customary in the divorce & family court system. Fathers don’t rate and the system will do whatever is necessary to ensure that fathers are separated from their children as much of the time as possible and made to pay a maximum amount of child support to keep the funds coming into the state governments from the federal government.

Be mindful, my comments made throughout these posts on the custody evaluation are made with “knowing now what I didn’t know then.”  Despite some of the experiences I had at the time they occurred, I still believed I presented well and was confident of a positive outcome, especially given how PEW acted in the joint sessions.  I have no idea how she acted in her one-on-ones.

Next segment - Conclusion and Recommendations.

Proactive Projection

Despite my title, I give her early credit for taking a stab at heading off any “drama” (as she put it) in the following email:

LM,

I just wanted to update you on S2. He still has a 103 fever. I’m going to give it till tomorrow and see if they can call something other than Amoxcicillan in. If my memory serves me, he never really responds to that. I called the Dr. this morning and they said to give it another 24 hours.

Also, I wanted to head off any holiday drama this year. Thanksgiving is mind right?

I know you get Christmas again, but that IS my week, so you will pick up on Christmas Eve and return them either Christmas Day evening or in the AM on the 26th? Please confirm pick up and drop off asap.

New years is mine this year. which falls during your week, so I am assuming we exchange new years eve and then again New years day??

Like I said. I want to head off the drama before it begins, so please respond asap.

~PEW

It’s apparently still too difficult for her to check the court order as the schedule is that clear.

  • Thanksgiving is hers this year.
  • Christmas is mine this year, pick-up on Christmas Eve and drop-off on December 26th.
  • New Year’s is hers this year, pick-up on New Year’s Eve and drop-off on January 1st.

I did laugh a little at her contention that she is the one trying to head off the drama, considering she is the only one who has engaged in custodial interference, failing to show up for my Christmas holiday with the children in 2006. This resulted in a contempt hearing where she was found guilty of custodial interference and failure to follow other provisions of the court order in place at the time.

But hey… if that makes her feel better and she ultimate complies with the order this year… I’m okay with that!


MOSTCOMMENTS

BOOKLIST

OURCATEGORIES