The Psycho Ex Wife

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.

Well, it’s obviously no secret that I wasn’t thrilled about the report and recommendations.  In terms of the parenting aspects and relationship I have with the children - I was quite happy.  However, after everything that was discussed about with both PEW and me, everything that was supposed to be in the report but wasn’t, and everything that was in the report - how could I be anything but thoroughly disappointed overall?

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III

One of the biggest issues I had was the glaring omission from the report of Psycho-SIL residing with PEW and the children.  The report didn’t reflect the significant level of concern Gloria expressed in the sessions with her.  I don’t overstate it when I say that she was adamant that it was going to end up being a problem and insisted openly that PEW’s lying about the living arrangements would be part of the report.  It didn’t happen as I detailed in Part 1.

Things really get exasperating in Part II where the overall impressions and observations are documented.

Gloria, about PEW:

She feels alone in parenting the children and overwhelmed when either of the children exhibit any aggression. Her parenting effectiveness has therefore been diminished since the loss of the co-parenting arrangement that the parties enjoyed throughout their marriage, and their separation, prior to LM’s move.

Interesting.  And completely false. PEW’s style of parenting was quite different from mine. She didn’t like being the bad guy. She didn’t like being a disciplinarian. She didn’t like doing anything that involved something other than being fun and friends with the children even at the youngest ages.

From my preparation for the hearing:

Gloria’s report contends that PEW’s issues with controlling the boy’s outbursts are due to the loss of co-parenting that was in place when LM lived in [custody-state]. LM would contend that PEW has always had issues when alone with the boys, even when they were married and living together, as evidenced by the instant messages previously attached in this section. LM has consistently tried to help PEW be more consistent with the boys, but he would be no more successful in this endeavor if he lived next door than if he lived across the country, as it is up to PEW to change her behavior.

Gloria’s contention that the “void” LM’s absence creates has been caused by his move is simply unrealistic. His absence was caused by the divorce and PEW’s wish to maintain primary physical custody. This same absence would exist even if he lived in [custody state] and PEW maintained primary physical custody. He simply can’t be there all the time if he is to move on with his own life. If PEW needed him there all the time she should have and could have considered working harder on her own issues and the marital issues and not filed for divorce. It is unfortunate that PEW can’t handle the responsibility of her two children on her own, but these are the realities of being a single parent. These are the same realities LM faces when parenting the boys on his own, and yet he has been able to handle them, both in the year before the move and since.

This line of thinking has always frustrated the ever-loving shit out of me.  I have a tendency to be all about root-cause and effect.  To this day, I can find no one who can attribute anything that has occurred in the aftermath of the separation and divorce - to the fucking separation and divorce!!! I’m not convinced that you, the reader, can understand just how exasperating that is.  Not only PEW, but others, in this case Gloria, lay the blame at my feet despite the documented struggles PEW had with parenting on her own, even when we were married!  Further, the situation is not caused by my relocation.  The situation is caused by PEW filing for divorce, leaving the marital home, and fighting tooth-and-nail for sole/primary custody of the children!  That’s the reality!!!  So, why does everyone have such hard time acknowledging the true root-cause of the situation?

I know!  Because it would mean putting the blame and/or responsibility on the mother!

Here’s the reality - if I have 6 days per month with the children in Russia or I have 6 days per month with the children across town - WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!  To normal people - there is none, so my relocation has absolutely NO bearing on PEW’s inability to parent.  PEW is totally responsible for that, but you won’t find it in the report.  More bothersome - is that Gloria’s language actually validates PEW’s thoughts - that my relocation is the root of everything bad that has happened… since the relocation.

We didn’t “enjoy” any co-parenting arrangement post-separation, and it was strained during the marriage.  It was clear in the sessions.  It was supported by ample documentation and even PEW’s own words, but you won’t find that in the report.

Gloria, about LM: (more…)

Continuing from the prior installment, the observations of DW, the children, and the overall observations and impressions, comes the recommendation by Gloria, Custody Evaluator #2.

RECOMMENDATION:

With the permission of the Court to make recommendations in this matter, and based upon the available clinical data, it is my professional opinion, within a reasonable degree of certainty, that the best psychological interests of S1 and S2 are served as follows…

What exactly does that mean, anyway?  It’s a lot of really big, cool sounding professional words that don’t mean shit.  What does “available clinical data” mean?  What amounted to a couple of hours, at most, with any one of us?  She does so with a “reasonable degree of certainty?”  How does one measure that?  It’s so blatantly misleading and unprofessional that it should be illegal to have it as boilerplate language on these reports.  At least they could try to be somewhat honest about it and say, “Based upon the very limited interaction that I had with this family and collateral contacts, and with absolutely no real certainty other than my opinion about myself and the report I’ve decided to throw together at the last minute… and absent any hard-and-fast true clinical data… and with a caseload that is making our files burst at the seams - I make the following recommendations to the court and thank them for referring the thousands of families that go through the Family Court Room like an assembly line to our organization to the tune of several thousand dollars a pop monthly:”

Too much?

LEGAL CUSTODY: The parties should retain joint legal custody.

RESIDENTIAL PLAN: Primary physical custody of both children should remain with the mother and partial physical custody should be with the father.  The children should share time with their parents as follows:

1. Father should have partial custody of the children on alternate weekends during the school year.  The school year should be as defined in the school calendar.  The weekends should alternate where the children will spend one weekend in the Father’s home in [home-state] and the second weekend spent locally to reduce the amount of time the children are traveling.
2. Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas should be alternated by the parents each year.
3. The children should spend ALL of the other school holidays and breaks in which there is a three day weekend, exclusive of the holidays noted above, with the father in [home state].
4. Father should continue with providing all of the transfers of the children when they will be in [home state].  Mother should retrieve the children at the start of her custody periods when they are with their father locally.  Father should provide Mother with the location for the next custody period in writing two weeks in advance.

SUMMER SCHEDULE: Commencing the Sunday following the last day of school until the Sunday prior to the last full week before school restarts, the custody schedule should be as follows:

1. The children should spend three (3) weeks with father in [home-state] followed by one week with mother in [custody state] for the entire summer schedule as defined above.
2. During the summer schedule, the parties should meet at [the half-way exchange location] for all exchanges of the children.
3. The parties should vacation with the children during their respective custody periods.
4. The children should spend a 24-hour period with mother on Mother’s Day and her birthday and a 24-hour period with father on Father’s Day and his birthday.
5. Each party should celebrate the children’s birthdays on that party’s respective weekend either before or after the actual birthday.

I don’t even know where to begin with picking apart these specific recommendations, so I’ll save it for the Custody Evaluation 2 Post-Mortem.

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

(more…)

In part 1, we covered the background information and the observations of both the psycho ex-wife and LM.  Today, we’ll move onto the observations of the children (S1 and S2) and DW.

THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - Children):

S1, age 6, and S2, age 4.  S1 has completed kindergarten.  S2 has attended pre-school.  For their session, the children arrived with their father from their paternal grandmother’s home.  Both parents joined the children’s session at the start and close of the hour.  Initially withholding, both children were able to participate fully in their session.  S1 has somewhat of a stammer when confused or anxious.  When his father was present, S1 sought him out for answers to perfunctory questions and engaged him in close, face-to-face dialogue.  When their mother entered the session, both children responded with warmth toward her and engaged both parents equally.

Neither child exhibited significant stranger anxiety.  S2 did exhibit low frustration tolerance.  During the session, he would make demands of his brother and become tearful if not responded to immediately.  S1 attempted to manage his brother’s demands by remaining calm and attempting explanations.  In what appeared to be a maneuver to prevent confrontations, S1 would consistently yield to his younger brother.

S1’s play demonstrated an unwillingness to surrender his parental dream; that of his mother and father co-habitating again.  When questioned further, he clearly demonstrated in play, and explained via his narrative, that he was comfortable in both of his parents’ homes but uncomfortable away from his father for long periods of time.  Spontaneously, he attempted to develop a custody schedule which would allow him to see both parents daily.  He became confounded when the logistics were brought to his attention and say, Oh, yeah, it’s a long ride so I guess we should see Mom in the mornings and Dad in the evenings.”  It appears that LM’s relocation may be reviving the tensions from the initial breakup for S1, overwhelming his ability to conceptualize this new separation from his father.

Both children stated that their father comforts them when they first arrive in his home and that their mother and Psycho-SIL do likewise in PEW’s home.  They eagerly told stories of spending time with their Psycho-FIL, Psycho-SIL, and their paternal grandmother.

S2 demonstrated no separation anxiety for either parent.  During the session, he would alternately ask to see his mother and his father and when he overheard his father from the waiting room, he asked to leave the session stating, “I want to see if he wants to talk to me now.”

S1 is overweight for his age and seemed uncomfortable when physically active in the session.  Throughout the session when S1’s states or actions were validated, he exhibited certain facial movements ostensibly serving to discharge some anxiety.  It is possible that this child will tend to overeat in an attempt to assuage overwhelming emotions now and in the future.

Despite his mood fluctuations, S2 responded to redirection when supported and comforted; with a less than optimum parental response, however, it is likely that he would easily escalate with negative behaviors, as was reported by PEW.  S2 appears to be expressing the anger in this sibling ground and S1 appears to be attempting to manage his own anxiety and depression and that of his brother as well.

There is no doubt in my mind that she has a really great read on both the boys at this time in their lives.  S1 has a lot of my personality at that age, one of trying to be peacemaker and a strong feeling of family bond.  They can both demonstrate an intelligence beyond their years.  S1, particular in the younger years, was very loyal and protective of S2 and, as described in the short session by Gloria with the children, he was often taking a caretaker role when S2 was upset about anything.

Of course, she also recognizes S1’s heavily emotional personality and his weight, which would, without a doubt, contributing to further weight gain.  What Gloria couldn’t know at the time - was the lack of meaningful healthy food options for him/them at PEW’s home and their tendency to be “snacked to death” on a daily basis.

“Less than optimal parental response.”  Interesting.

THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - DW):

DW is [age and divorced].  She was married [date] and has to children SD aged 6 and SS aged 5.  Her children alternate weeks with their father and the parties live nearby one another in [home state].  She reports that her co-parenting with her former spouse [POE] has been successful and that LM and POE have had cooperative interactions, too.

DW [employment details].  She and POE have shared the costs of a nany who travels to both homes on their respective custody weeks.  DW has arranged for her children to be with her and LM has custody of his children, S1 and S2.  She added that all 4 children have become very close friends.

DW has experience with co-parenting successfully and appeared to have proper boundaries for managing all four children stating, “We bathe our own children at different times and he disciplines his and I discipline mine.”  She reported thath S1 and S2 have not demonstrated any negative behaviors while with her.

DW stated that she and LM have no immediate plans to wed, but that they will jointly own their new home and split all expenses equally.

Nothing earth-shattering in either report on Gloria’s observations.  At this point, let’s move onto the overall observations…

(more…)

For some background information leading up to the report that came from our 2nd custody evaluation:

• Heading Towards Custody Evaluation #2
• Father Begs Series
• Custody Evaluation #1 Series

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):

1. 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.
2. 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):

1. What is the nature of the childrens’ bonds with each parent?
2. How have the children adjusted to the loss of weekly contact with their father since March of 2005?
3. 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.

THE CONCLUSION continuing from Part 6, mercifully.  To close out this series that sets the stage for what would be an extremely difficult summer of 2005… are 3 email exchanges that finish up the series of emails that went back-and-forth over the course of 5 days.  We close out rather anti-climactically, with her repeating her same old mindless lies and my repeating my same old mindless truths.

PEW:

Listen, you had almost 50/50 custody of the kids. Then you left town. Please stop saying that I am trying to prevent you from spending meaningful time with them. You did that all by yourself.

LM:

Again with the fictional account of reality. Firstly, I didn’t have “almost 50/50.” You and your attorney saw to that when you amended our agreement after we reached one that was truly 50/50. After you got done chopping out my “every other Monday” and refusing to allow extra weekdays - it was more like 65/35, which was advantageous to you because then you marched right out and filed a petition to modify the support order to increase your stipend (after saying you weren’t) because again, that’s more important than time with the boys. I won’t even start with your repeated threats and hanging Sonya’s recommendation over my head, which - I remind you yet again, recommended almost exactly what I am asking for during the Summer - a reversal of primary. Try not to forget that. Even Sonya’s report, which you like to throw in my face - recognized the importance of appropriately significant time with the boys. However, your uncanny ability to ignore that reality would mean you would have to admit to yourself that what I ask for IS in the best interests of the children - Sonya’s recommendation reflected that and I am hoping that Gloria’s report also reflects the sentiment she offered during our sessions about that importance.

Also - and I will continue to reiterate this - with few exceptions, the situation would be very close to the same whether I lived in [any of several surrounding communities] or [home-state]. You would have primary time during the school year and I would probably be having to fight with you just the same for primary during the Summer. Stop trying to portray the relocation to [home-state] as being “the only” reason that the situation is what it is. It’s not the reality, as usual.

PEW:

I truly think you’re losing it when I read your emails. That is why I am not going to comment further because I think you are having a nervous breakdown or something.

LM:

Don’t count on it, PEW.

PEW:

Like I said, you will get to spend a good amount of time with the boys over the summer and throughout the year. You’ll get extended weekends and christmas vacation etc…. That’s the best I can do.

LM:

It’s not the “best you can do.” It’s all you’re willing to do because all you care about is you.

PEW:

I have to take the car in for service and new tires, once I do that maybe I’ll start meeting you halfway.

LM:

I won’t hold my breath. Apparently, the car is reliable for EVERYTHING ELSE in your life except the “safety of the children” during their treks to [home-state] that you so often pontificate about but actually do nothing to mitigate. One can hope, though.

That’s the end of the first of three emails that will bring this segment of my disaster to a conclusion. More scatterbrained topics, historical re-writes, and mindless drivel from the both of us.

(more…)