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.

Folks, this is a really long one.  If you think you’re going to try to do this all in one sitting, better wrap yourself in a Snuggie and have a nice, strong drink at the ready.

Go on, take your time… I’ll wait…

-

-

-

(This is me, waiting…)

-

-

-

We often fail to realize “things” when we’re right in the thick of it.  Thus, comes the beauty of hindsight.  You see, PEWs like mine never learn from the past and therefore are always doomed to repeat it.  I annoyingly speak of projection when it comes to PEW, but it simply cannot be helped.  One of the unfortunate by-products of my long layoff in 2007 and my long layoff last year is the dreaded trips to the courthouse for the waste-of-time conferences followed by the inevitable hearings.  Child support has to be adjusted one way or the other (and sometimes not) and this gives PEW the opportunity for PEW to recycle her old tricks, like her magical math that grossly over-inflates child care expenses and health care expenses and whatever else it is she can fabricate in an effort to maximize the child support number.  It’s especially nice for her when her fictional figures get rolled into the equation by the courts, because when she doesn’t actually incur those expenses, that’s cash-money directly into her pocket.

Dateline, early 2006. As discussed in general many times in the past, I had grown tired of being “ripped off” by PEW’s magical math.  I also had grown tired of “taking the (bullshit) high road” and simply sacrificing substantial credits due me when things were to be righted, just to avoid going to court.  While I wasn’t particularly smart and certainly not in low-contact mode, I was definitely trying to rattle the cage by calling her on her fuzzy math, even when it was just blowing smoke to expose her lies.

It was tax time and I was foolishly relying on PEW for some information I needed to do taxes.  I requested the tax ID numbers of the school, the church (for S2’s pre-k), and the babysitter she reportedly was paying $165/week to watch S2 for three half-days per week.  This was not good for either PEW or “Janice” because I was blustering about claiming my percentage of childcare costs that were part of the CS figure.

PEW wasn’t giving it, not only because she flat-out didn’t pay Janice what she had told the court, but Janice would also have to report the amount PEW told the court, every single week, as income… did I mention every single week for the school year?  Looks like this was a serious catch-22.  While ultimately I let it drop, her lies to compound her lies might make for great reading.  At the same time, you can have a chuckle about how ridiculous high-contact continued to make me look.  We’ll pick it up after the initial requests and back-and-forth…  I had called her on the figures she gave to the court and she replied:

(more…)

In Part 2 of the 2005 Christmas and Thanksgiving mess, things started to spiral out of control.  In today’s segment, the fallout will see a “double-reverse” and, as usual, we’ll make due with what we managed to obtain.

PEW,

I’m not “bargaining” with you, either. This is a simple matter of finding out if I can follow through with already arranged Thanksgiving plans without you using the children as pawns to prevent me from picking up S2.

Since you still cannot do that, I say again, I am left with no choice. I will no longer continue to knuckle-under under your threats. Sorry if that “breaks S1’s heart” - but I will explain to him that unfortunately, you and I were not able to work out the schedule.

Since I cannot plan for Thanksgiving holiday time nor Christmas week time, I will simply follow through on my usual weekend time because that’s the way you want it. That’s what’s really sad - your desire to be a ‘hard-ass’ again is what is ultimately breaking S1’s heart.

~LM

Of course I will continue to avoid bad-mouthing PEW to the children at all costs. It’s not good for them and it’s not good for me. Anytime any truths need to be shared, they should be shared carefully and in an age-appropriate way - a word of advice all normal parents should follow, even in situations such as these.

LM,

Why can’t you just come up here, stay and take him to the party? Or you leave them both here for the weekend and keep your Thanksgiving plans the way they were?? This is insane.

~PEW

Well, she got one thing right. It was certainly insane. One thing she never got through her thick head is her belief that I could just impose on other friends or family members to house me and the children whenever I asked. These are people with lives, children of their own (some very new additions), and plans of their own that weren’t going to be simply dropped whenever I wanted them to host me and the children for several days.

PEW,

1) Because I can’t afford a hotel room for the weekend.

2) Because you won’t keep a story straight on either my Thanksgiving weekend plans or what I have in mind for Christmas (either the morning of the 26th thru the 3rd or the morning of the 26th thru the 30th).

If you can commit to making sure I can keep my plans for Thanksgiving and let me spend Christmas week with them, I won’t risk losing any time with them.

It’s only “insane” because you’ve said “no” to both Thanksgiving and Christmas. And since I can’t count on you not to “revoke” your agreements once plans are set, I’d just as soon keep the schedule the way it is.

If something should change on the “housing front” for the forthcoming weekend, I would do it. If it doesn’t, I can’t. But you need to stop this “yes” and then “no” BS so that we can BOTH plan accordingly.

~LM

I couldn’t make it anymore clear. I also couldn’t understand that it wasn’t possible to make it clear because clarity isn’t a PEW strong suit. It’s always all about the engagement and nothing more.

In her next follow-up, she’d write, “You mean to tell me you can’t stay with…” …and she made a list of family and friends that I should be able to stay with, over the holidays, simply because I asked. Maybe this is also part of the borderline’s lofty sense of entitlement. Perhaps in her mind, no one else’s family plans during the holidays should take a back seat to her expectations of them.

(more…)

Despite the psycho ex-wife’s repetitive complaints about the costs of all of the contentious litigation - it never stopped her from getting attorneys involved and spending a lot of money on wasteful motions, proceedings, letters, and phone calls.  This post is a follow-up to: Spending a Lot to Get a Little.

I took a shot in May of 2005 to get it resolved, but the never-ending sense of entitlement prevailed and I just let it drop.  Out of nowhere, during a phone call in mid-August of that year, she had made mention of the $1,000 escrow that still existed from the settlement of the marital household.  I replied via email:

PEW:

With regard to that escrow acct. It is currently in [first attorney's] name. If you want to have it transferred to D-Mac’s, I’ll sign a release so we can split it up.

And suddenly, without hesitation, she gives the go-ahead to release it, probably because there was something else she wanted to buy.

LM:

That would be fine with me.

PEW:

Well I don’t know how to go about doing that. So can you find out?

LM:

Send a letter to D-Mac agreeing to release the escrow account, splitting the proceeds between you and I 50/50. She will call [first attorney] and he will disburse the checks accordingly.

About a month would go by before I heard anything more, about mid-September when she wrote:

PEW:

Any word on this?

It was shortly thereafter that the checks were cut and the last of the “equitable distribution” matters from our horrendous marital relationship was completed.

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…)