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.

Continuing from Impressions & Observations, The Kids, the evaluator discusses The Psycho Ex-Wife.

Discussions of The PEW:

The PEW came to each interview well prepared to discuss the custody issues. She expresses herself well verbally and did not appear to be comfortable with the level of conflict which surrounded the custody petitions. The mother is a conscientious parent, who supports the children’s relationship with the father. She wants the children to have a close relationship with the father and she views him as a loving parent. Her frustration appears to be around the issue of where the children should attend school. She believes that the father is attempting to remain in the marital residence to support his request for primary custody. However, she does not believe the father has offered her a reasonable settlement on the home which then enable her to purchase a home of her own. In my opinion, this is the very basis of the conflict for both parties. The mother has good parenting skills. It is my impression that S1 is acting out some anger toward her over the parental separation because he trusts her and knows that it is safe to do so and that his mother will continue to love him despite his anger.

With analysis like this, it’s a wonder I haven’t had a heart attack from the stress and upset over the white-wash.

1. She did not come to any of the sessions “well-prepared.” It’s complete fiction. Even when we were both instructed to come to the last two sessions (each) with a suggested parenting plan, she came with nothing. On both occasions I came with two. It’s complete fiction that she was under control, well-prepared, or in any way willing to discuss a shared-parenting plan. Her focus was an avalanche of false accusations and M-O-N-E-Y!  Nothing PEW did in these sessions could possibly have been interpreted to conclude she was fully prepared, interested in or supported the boys’ relationship with me.
2. She supports the children’s relationship with the father? As shown how? By the laundry list of abuse allegations? By filing for custody of the children? How exactly can a CE conclude that the person who initiated all of this litigation starting with the blind-side custody petition be fostering and want a good children-father relationship? HOW?!?!?!
3. Again with the school issue that had already been settled and, by the time this report came out (the day before Thanksgiving) had been working well without issue.
4. If you read the final sentence for it’s surface - you would have to be flabbergasted at that conclusion. Any person with any basic psychological training would easily conclude that he is acting out rage towards his mother for destroying his family and interfering with the relationship with his father. Calm and cuddling with me would conclude just the opposite. Safe. Comfortable. Calm. Psychology 101, folks. The reality is, both boys act out with her because there are no consequences for their actions. There are no boundaries with PEW. It’s why they are problematic with her and rarely so with me to such a degree. A 6-year old beating on their mother because they are upset is not normal. It’s not because they “trust” the mother.
5. If you read the final sentence “between the lines” - S1 can rage because it’s safe with his mother to do so and she will love him unconditionally. Unspoken - it’s not safe to express himself with his father. Dad will not love him the same way. Family Court Bias 101, folks.

The PEW works a schedule which includes a double-shift on Sundays in order for her to be more available for the children during the school week. She believes it would be best for the children to be in one home during the school week and she is willing to give up her weekends with them if she were to have primary custody in order for the father to have the children on weekends.

Are you kidding me? So, the CE is buying what PEW is selling. Both boys are in school during the day, which effectively means she has no interaction with them from after breakfast until after school. That leaves a few hours until bedtime. PEW, of course, would graciously give up her weekends (so she can party and have no responsibility and not have to interact all day with the children in any capacity) so that I can have my relationship with her children. Isn’t she great thinking of me?  I also have to wonder why the CE chose to mention only the double-shift on Sunday and not the reality that she was working 2nd-shift Friday, double-shift Saturday, AND a double-shift Sunday.

This would be the perfect PEW set-up. She would have the kids very part-time during the week and all of her weekends would be free. She would get all of the benefits that come with being a mother with primary custody of her children, and effectively the smallest portion of responsibility and actual hands-on time with the children.

The bottom line is, with both children in school (S1 full day kindergarten and S2 in pre-K), PEW was no more available to the children during the school week than I was.  Despite that explanation to the CE that this was reality - she still wrote what she wrote above.

PEW attended Parochial School herself and believes that the children would receive a good education if they attended St. Parochial School. She indicates that they could attend this school from any area where she might purchase a home. If the children should attend this school, her plan was to continue to volunteer at the school in order to receive a tuition reduction.

Amazing. The irony and oft-repeated theme of PEW is that I want custody of the kids to keep the house and/or vice-versa. She does this while repeatedly focusing on her “need” to purchase a home of her own. The CE won’t see it (not can’t) even though it’s plainly obvious. PEW is a master at accusing others of what she’s doing herself. When I speak of projection - I can assure you that PEW exemplifies it.

Also, she flat-out lies again. PEW never volunteered at the school. PEW had no intention of volunteering at the school. What PEW did know is that some of the other kids’ parents did volunteer at the school and got a reduction in tuition as a result. This was nothing more than piling on her self-portrayal as the doting, sacrificing parent when all she really wanted was the cash-out from the house. The only way to accomplish that was to get primary custody of the children, ensuring that my financial responsibilities as a result would see that goal through. And it did.  PEW used the CE and the family court bias to her advantage and they fell right into line.

The PEW appears capable of providing a stable, consistent home for the children. She does recognize that the children are accustomed to living in a house, and indicates that she is only in an apartment until the property settlement issue is resolved, at which time she hopes to purchase a place of her own. The PEW appears to be able to make good decisions for the children, and wants what is best for them.

Again with the money and the house.  Let’s review the “good decisions” for the children.

1. Threatening suicide repeatedly.
2. Breaking into the marital home in their company, threatening me with firearms, giving the children the impression that we were getting back together, only to leave again 2-days later.
3. Leaving upwards of 3-dozen times during our relationship.
4. Forcing a move already under threat of divorce to the 2nd marital household.
5. Moving the children again not 3-years later into an apartment.
6. Forcing the sale of the only home they’ve ever known and repeatedly telling the CE that the main purpose was to get the money to buy her own home.  Moving them away from friends, neighbors, a great neighborhood, etc.
7. Planning to move again.
8. Destroying the children’s family for selfish reasons.
9. Trying to change their school again.

That’s the short list.  What an amazing spin the custody evaluator manages to put on every single thing that comes out of the PEW’s mouth.

Next segment - Impressions & Observations, Mister-M.