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.

From a reader, HG:

Hello,

I am a reader of your blog, and I was hoping I could enlist your assistance for my cause. I am going to be petitioning the Governor of my state, Virginia, to proclaim April 25th Parental Alienation Awareness Day, and I have started a petition in support of the proclamation. I am trying to get as many signatures as possible, especially Virginians - but I am having a really hard time. (Which, I guess, is why awareness is so important!)

I am hoping that you might see fit to make your readers aware of the petition.  If you would like to sign, or post the link, the petition can be found here:

Petition to have Parental Alienation Awareness Day recognized in Virginia

Thank you - and keep writing! Your blog has been a huge help to my husband and I. Especially the low/no contact.

~HG

Let’s help HG see her project through to successful recognition by officials in the state of Virginia. Sign the petition.

Last year, we here at thepsychoexwife, shined a spotlight on Parental Alienation Awareness Day 2008. Many, many readers submitted their own experiences with parental alienation. Some involved their offspring. Some were children of alienators.  On April 25, 2008 - we posted a story approximately every 30-minutes for 24-hours.  It was tough, because I was using software that didn’t allow me to schedule posts… so DW and I split up our sleep times and post times to make sure we honored our commitment.

They were all heartbreaking stories that were shared in an effort to make sure that spotlight shined bright!  I thank again all those who found the strength to share their story.

This year, we would like to do something very similar… only without the specific time interval!  So, if you have a story that you would like to share, send it to us.  As always, names will be changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty.  The important part of this exercise is to share the story and show the world that parental alienation exists… it hurts children and parents… and needs to be accounted for in court, as we’ve seen occurring more and more in the news, not just in the United States but beyond, too!

Visit the Parental Alienation Awareness Day Organization Website for events in your town, your city, your state, your country!  If you are sending a submission to us for posting on April 25th, 2009 - please include “PAS STORY” in the subject line… and thank you for even considering doing so.  Spread the word.

With the economy in the tank, a number of states are being forced to address the issue of child support when the NCP (non-custodial parent) has lost their income.

Back in the old days, it was easy to label any man who lost his job as a “Deadbeat Dad,” assume he was deliberately unemployed so that he could get out of child support, impute his income anyway, and keep the federal CS-matching pipeline open. Men who lost their jobs remained current on their child support by living in poverty, sleeping on couches and blow-up beds because they could no longer afford housing, and borrowing from parents, friends, and anyone else who would loan them money; just to keep themselves out of jail while supplementing the lifestyle of a freeloading ex — all “in the best interests of the children,” of course.

Now that job-loss is front page news; now that it’s somewhat politically incorrect to be so heartless; now that layoffs are happening to so many in the mainstream that the “deadbeat” label seems ludicrous, not to mention implausible… state legislators find themselves wringing their hands over how to continue to squeeze at least a little bit of blood from the proverbial stone.

Keep in mind that before the reality of the recession hit, a man who lost his job could petition for a modification of child support to match his new (lack of) income… but now that unemployment has more than doubled, court dockets are being bombarded, child support enforcement agencies are clogged with new cases - states are looking for ways to streamline the process while still optimizing their precious income source.

Many pundits are now clamoring for even MORE government oversight of the child support operation because — so the claim goes — if fathers don’t support their children, then the state will be forced to provide for them instead, via welfare and other entitlement programs.

It’s a false dichotomy.

There is another option. An option that restores children to BOTH parents. An option that teaches children the values of responsibility, hard work, and integrity. An option that instantly slices in half the odds that any child will be forced into poverty. An option that cuts wasteful government intrusion. An option so obvious, it still truly astounds me that nobody has brought it out in the mainstream.

Therefore, I present it here. It is simply this:

ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to parent their children. ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to provide for their children.

Therefore, in divorce, the de facto presumption — barring serious, proven, demonstrated endangerment or neglect — is that both parents shall have joint custody, both parents shall have 50/50 access, and both parents shall contribute 50% to the children’s support. Each parent will provide for and care for the children during the 50% of the time that the children are with them. No money will change hands, because neither parent will expect anyone else to meet their personal obligation and responsibility for their children. Any parent who would not step up to their obligation to provide for and care for their children during their 50% of the time would then be held in contempt of their order.

Now I know — I know — there will be parents who abuse this solution. They will play silly games; games with clothing, with children’s personal effects, with not taking kids to the doctor during their parenting time… etc. Guess what? The kind of parent who would do that to their child will do that to their child under any system, including the one that we currently use. While it’s true that there is nothing about the “True 50/50 Possession and Provision Plan” (TFPP) that prevents parents from being jerks with their kids, there is nothing about it that makes it any easier for parents to be jerks with their kids, either.

But, if states are looking to save themselves some money during these tough economic times, they could count up the cost of the office of child support enforcement, which would go away; and the cost of protracted custody battles, which would go away; and the immeasurable cost of supporting broken/damaged children who dropped out of school, began using drugs, broke the law, or had illegitimate children of their own as a result of the high-conflict divorce cartel that we currently employ.

If both parents are contributing equally to providing for their children, then the job loss of one parent would only have half the impact that it currently does. Indeed, even the probability of job loss is spread between two wage-earners, thus reducing risk. In addition, children learn that ALL adults are accountable for the choices that they make; ALL adults are responsible for the care of themselves and those they bring into the world; ALL adults are expected to work hard and produce something in this world. Who wouldn’t want to live in a society where children learned these values by example?

The TFPP plan makes perfect sense to me. Does it to you?

~jb

———-

About JB:

Collaborative Divorce Coach, Mediator, Family Mediator, Parent Coordinator, Communications Coach, Facilitator, Public Speaker, Instructor, Group Discussion Leader, Cognitive Psychology Aficionado, Life Management Training Assistant…. Absolutely passionate about protecting children from the ravages of divorce! Also — coaches, teaches, and consults in the online world Second Life as avatar Andi Martinsyde, at Reliable Divorce Consultants.

See all my blog posts at: thedivorcecoach-am.

Going back for as long as I can remember with the Psycho Ex-Wife, the holidays are a time of ramped-up chaos and maximum disruption.  This year would be a little more of the same, however unlike prior years, this disruption was small and ultimately overcome.  For that, I am thankful.

As happens with many post-divorce custody situations, sometimes the court-ordered schedule can get a little ornery.  It’s one of those years where one parent’s holiday time falls on the other parent’s custodial week.  This can cause a logisitcal nightmare, particular if your plans include some travel, as ours did.  While I will almost always advise people in a high-conflict situation to “follow the court order to the letter,” sometimes I’ll foolishly take a shot at making things right for everyone and make contact that includes a suggestion for change.  And sometimes, when dealing with a psycho ex-spouse, the reasonable suggestion which will actually give her extra time is rejected, even if it means reducing the amount of travel involved for everyone.

Following the court order, we would have had an exhange on the 21st (her custodial week start), an exchange on the 24th (my Christmas holiday), an exchange on the 26th (to close out her custodial week), and exchange on the 28th (my custodial week start), an exchange on the 31st (her New Years holiday), and exchange on the 2nd (to close out my custodial week), and finally and exchange on the 4th (to start my custodial week).  Given that we had made some plans to be 4-hours away at the main home for Christmas celebrations, that would make for an awful lot of driving and a tremendous amount of disruption for the children during that period.  This is only because both Christmas and New Years fall in the middle of the week.

So, knowing that a suggestion would likely not be received without the usual level of paranoia and negative feedback, I forged ahead anyway with what I thought was a sensible plan.  I suggested a switch to 2-weeks on/2-weeks off before resuming to the week-on/week-off regular schedule after New Years.  Further, I offered to drop the children off on the 27th at lunchtime, which would give them a full weekend with PEW as well as leave her with 3 extra days during that period.  The best part of all?  1 exchange.  On the 27th.  I would keep them from the 17th through the 27th.  She would keep them from the 27th through January 11th.  There were some added benefits, too.  PEW had to work the few days before Christmas and the boys had school on Monday and Tuesday with Tuesday being a half-day.  I was off and could manage that without them having to go to aftercare on either day, and we could leave for our holiday at 1PM on Tuesday instead of waiting until the 24th.

She refused.  Repeatedly.

This was fine with me as I was prepared for the logistical nightmare.  It’s just one of those things you have to deal with in a post-divorce situation anyway.  Further, it also demonstrated her complete lack of consistency in her past arguments regarding all of the driving we used to have to do, the dangerous highways, and most importantly - how much she missed the children and wanted them to be with her during the holidays.  You can just click on any of the Christmas labels to see details about that.  Future file fodder.  He arguments against the switch flew directly in the face of way too many past arguments.

I persisted a little bit over the course of the weeks leading up to Christmas, ignoring the issues she brought up which were irrelevant to the matter at hand, like my relationship with DW, my being a “dog killer,” I must have some ulterior motive, and other tired old arguments that you’ve read about far too many times before on this blog.  I remained focused on the driving and exchange nightmare.

She did manage to drag the kids into the discussion, claiming that she spoke to them about it and that they “totally freaked out and refused to do that.” Since the boys are intelligent and since she already dragged them into it, I inquired about their discussion.  They told me that she didn’t talk to them about a schedule change.  She only told them that we would be going “back and forth a lot” and they weren’t really thrilled about it.  So, I showed them the calendar and, as any rational human beings would, they saw no problem with the suggestion and thought 2-weeks/2-weeks with one exchange over the holidays was a “great idea!”

With that, we discussed it again with PEW and she relented after thinking about it, but with conditions.  No surprise there, right?   She wanted to have the boys overnight on both the 21st (Sunday) and the 22nd (Monday) and then if I did that, she would agree to the switch.  Since the kids were going to be at school anyway, I told her simply, “Fine.” It was what was best for everyone involved and the constant upset to spend time each of us was dramatically reduced, even if I did concede 2 more days with the boys and they had to stay at aftercare for a few hours on Monday.

Fortunately, that was the end of it.  We had a wonderful Christmas holiday and the children only had to endure 1 exchange versus the 7 that would have occurred otherwise.  PEW got to feel like she “won” something in the bargain.

I also had the foresight to check things out a few years down the road… yes, a few years, and as luck would have it - it’s not something we’ll have to contend with for some time to come.  Thank goodness for small favors.

We sincerely hope the time you spent with your loved ones was at least as great a time as ours was.  It’s nice to close out the Christmas portion of the year-end festivities with children who tell you, “I really believe this was the best Christmas yet!”

Continuing from Negotiating with a Terrorist - Part II…

At this point, the downhill acceleration of the emails progressed.  Different from parts 1 and 2, these will show the splits between the two of us as I habitually would address each section, as if I thought it would do any good whatsoever.  I was still steeply embroiled in the need to explain, re-explain, and - given my poor negotiating position, essentially beg for understanding which would never come.

PEW:

I am in $10000 of debt because of you and you want to split hairs over the van. When I was keeping the van you wanted money thrown your way, with you keeping it…..that’s it. Let’s sell the van or sell both cars. Split the difference, that seems alot more fair.

LM:

I’m not splitting hairs over the van, nor do I want to. I didn’t ask for money and the van. You did. I told you I couldn’t do that. If you really want the van, then let’s split the house 50/50 and you keep the van and we’re done - that’s what I originally said. I told you I couldn’t give you the van and that cash and 50/50. I never wanted the van and cash. In the driveway you made it clear that you needed the money more than the van and that’s when you agreed to take $5G and the car.

PEW:

I have reservations about sharing custody 50/50. You’re claiming you want what’s best for them, but seriously is it just that you’re over a barrel right this minute?? It feels like you’re manipulating me again.

LM:

It has nothing to do with “being over a barrel.” I think that the recommendation that I only get the kids 6 days per month is ridiculous. It’s not fair to me. It’s certainly not fair to them. I’m not “manipulating” you in any way. I can’t change the fact that this wasn’t done last March. All I can do is put this to an end cooperating with you now. If that’s not something you want to do, I can’t change that. I’m sorry. If you now don’t want to agree to what we discussed, it’s not like I have a choice. I’ll just go to court and try my best to show the court that I deserve to be a father to my children for more than 6 days per month.

If you want to change the agreement we made from 50/50 house, $5G, car (and we’re done) to 50/50, Van (and we’re done), let’s do it.

If you want to hold this up more, that’s your choice, but understand that when mortgage payments start getting missed, we’ll both suffer far beyond what we’ve both already suffered. I certainly don’t want that. I don’t want to go to court anymore. You said you didn’t either. I certainly don’t want that.

All we spoke of is turning things around and trying to repair everything, and now you don’t want to. Forgive me if I just don’t get it. It’s just a shame that we’re going to have to go to court over this when we finally seemed to have found some common ground. Again, I’m not mad, I’m just really, really confused over your sudden reversal.

PEW:

The 5g’s was because I did[n't] work full time for 6 years or have an opportunity to contribute to a retirement plan. It didn’t have to do with the car vs. van. To you, I was just sponging off you for the past 6 years right? That’s what you said. I didn’t contribute anything right? You don’t think I derserve alimony or derserve any of your 401k.

LM:

PEW, I never said you were “sponging” off of me, please stop doing this.

Here are the facts:

- The difference between the vehicles and retirements is approximately $5,000 going to you. (this is with you getting the van)

- [Your lawyer's] conservative estimate on pre-marital equity in the house is approximately $5,000 going to me.

Those two items are a wash. You’re not getting ripped off. I am not taking advantage of you. These are using the numbers YOUR attorney put down. What we’ve agreed to considers the retirements, the vehicles, and the house at 50/50.

That leaves the house at 50/50.

I don’t owe you alimony. You’re gainfully employed and well-educated. You have been gainfully employed, full time, for a large portion of the last 6 years. You were PT for a few years after the birth of S1 and for a short period after the birth of S2.

I can’t be any more clear and I don’t know what there is to think about. If you don’t want to do it, just tell me so and we’ll go to court. I won’t be mad, I will be confused, I will be frustrated, but this is your choice. For months you’ve spoken of settling matters fairly and trying to continue amicably, as friends, co-parenting and what-not. We’ve both made some mistakes along this miserable experience and want to change things. Forgive me if I’m astounded that you think what amounts to what will likely be in excess of $50,000 is somehow “taking advantage of you.”

PEW:

We don’t have to hold up the sale of the house LM. Sell it. We’ll split the proceeds. That much we agree on. To say that you would start missing payments is ridiculous.

LM:

It’s not ridiculous. I have to make payments on the house. You want alimony yet, you’ve been benefitting not only from the appreciation in the house, but the significant principle that has been paid down since the beginning of the year. Think about that. That figure that you’re not considering is in excess of $10,000… an amount equal to your legal bill. I have legal fees, too.

Tell me again how I have taken advantage of you?

I don’t have the money to make the mortgage payments. This is not a lie. This is not forcing you to do anything. I’m giving you fair warning that things are tight and I cannot continue to make payments on this house. The longer you “think about it” - the more it costs us BOTH… and we’re at a point where we need to come to terms with our future without wrecking our chances to provide for these two boys.

PEW:

I’m asking for some more time. The last 8 months of my life have been horrible. I was a little overwhelmed by your niceness the other day. It’s been about a year since you spoke to me so kindly. As is my history, people take advantage of me. I can’t let that happen here.

LM:

I am not taking advantage of you. You have the facts and figures, PEW. I think it’s unfair to say that it has been a year since I’ve spoken to you kindly. With only a few exceptions, we’ve spoken nicely on the phone when we call to talk to the children. We’ve spoken nicely when we’ve done the child-exchanges. We’ve gone to school events for the boys and been nice to one another.

Can’t we go into the holidays with our eyes on the end of the combativeness and looking to the future?

The choice is yours here, PEW. You can’t accuse me of holding things up or making things difficult for you. The agreements we made the other night are MORE than fair to the both of us. If we can agree… the house is up for sale, the cars are signed over, the consent for divorce is signed… and we’re on our way to getting the children settled in their new homes and new schools and we have nothing more to fight about. Seriously.

Difficult discussions, yes. As you can see, there isn’t much to hassle over. It’s pretty straightforward what we have to split, and using the rather favorable figures offered by her attorney, the above is precisely how it should be split. I explained it clearly (I think). But… as has always been the case with every story I’ve read from anyone trying to settle almost any matter with someone suffering from or suspected of having Borderline Personality Disorder - it’s just never that cut and dry… no matter how cut and dry things actually are.

She’ll complain about the length of time, energy, and money she’s spent while in the same breath making overtures of extending each of those categories almost indefinitely.

Coming soon, Negotiating with a Terrorist Part IV…

Continuing from Negotiating with a Terrorist - Part I…

Her last email was followed up with the following, much more urgently worded stop sign…

LM,

Please hold off on sending anything to [your lawyer]. I need some more time to think about this. Honestly I don’t know how comfortable I am with how quickly you want to move this forward. I also don’t know how I feel about the car. I’m locked into driving S1 to school everyday for the rest of the year….and back. And S2 too for that matter. I need time to think about the whole custody issue too.

I need more time.

Thanks,
PEW

In matter of hours we’ve gone from an agreement… to disagreement over a vehicle detail… to disagreement on pretty much EVERY detail. Thanks? Oh, okay. You’re welcome. Ass.

Still, I’m negotiating from a position of weakness and I try to maintain decorum, civility, and nudge this towards an end. I reply…

PEW,

I can’t force you to do anything. But you have to understand something… I want to move forward in a positive direction and it seemed as though we were kicking that off in the right direction. Unfortunately, [my lawyer] has probably already mailed everything to [your lawyer's] office, so I can’t stop that now.

The longer this continues… the more it costs the both of us. I told you already that things are getting tight with the house and I cannot continue to pay for it… that will become a problem very soon. We need to put this to rest and move on, PEW.

I can’t keep going around in circles with you. You want to settle, then you don’t. Then you want to settle then you don’t. Then you want to settle, we actually work out an agreement, and two days later you don’t want to settle. I can’t keep doing this. We can’t keep doing this.

What happened to wanting to stop the madness and move on amicably and do what’s best for the children? I’m really trying here.

~LM

That pretty much sums it up. We can end the madness or not. My belief in my understanding of borderline personality disorder leads me to believe that if we end the madness, we end her reason for existing.

LM,

It’s just that you’ve been nothing but horrible since last February. I am in $10,000 of debt because of you and you want to split hairs over the van. When I was keeping the van you wanted money thrown your way, with you keeping it….. that’s it. Let’s sell the van or sell both cars. Split the difference, that seems alot more fair.

I have reservations about sharing custody 50/50. You’re claiming you want what’s best for them, but seriously is it just that you’re over a barrel right this minute??? It feels like you’re manipulating me again.

All this stuff you’re doing right now, should have been done last March. I’m thinking about this.

~PEW

I’ve been nothing but horrible to her. I filed nothing more than a counter-petition when she blind-sided me with the surprise custody petition. Everything else she has filed… injunctions, hearings over school, custody of the children, and has seen to it that her attorney has read, reviewed, accepted, rejected every bit of correspondence to that point… and I cost her. Everything that has occurred to this point (and beyond) was due to her taking action and incurring the costs. Everything. As always, it’s all someone else’s fault. Namely me.

And remember the repeated assertions about it always being about the money for me? Here, she suggests that we sell both vehicles, taking a big financial hit, and both be left without vehicles just so that she can have more cash, regardless of the horrible position it would leave either her or both her and I. All about the money for who? For the psycho ex-wife.

From here it would continue to disintegrate. Part III coming soon…