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:

LM was forthcoming that the primary impetus behind his move was what he felt to be “survival” as he put it. He struggled to adjust to the reduction in his buying power his income brought after the adjustment for child support.

Way to misrepresent the reality of the situation.  This wasn’t simply a matter of a “reduction in buying power.”  This was seriously about “survival.”  You’ll recall the real estate explosion was at its height at this time.  Rents for even small places, efficiencies even, were at a base of $1,000/month.  Given my income at the time, between all other normal living expenses, gas prices, utilities, insurances and a nearly $1,400/month CS order - I would be in the red every single month - even after significant cut-backs.  It was a disaster in the making, but you wouldn’t gather that from the language in Gloria’s report.  Reading it the way she wrote it, you would think it was just a matter of not having the normal standard middle class lifestyle.  An accurate portrayal would have read something like, “Mister-M has done an exhaustive analysis of his income versus his expenses.  Even with significant cutbacks, he is very unlikely to be able to make his ends meet and find suitable living arrangements for the children near enough to PEW’s home to give him anything more than every-other-weekend custody anyway.  He would be deficit spending each month without taking a second job, from which, more child support would be ordered.”

Gloria, about LM:

He stated that the growth potential at his long-standing job in [custody state] was no longer satisfactory. LM’s income at his new position is not substantially higher than that of his prior job. It appears that his chief economic gain was greater due to the lower real estate prices in [home state].

This is more groundwork for intimating that the blame for the strife is my relocation.  Further, she doesn’t make a factual assessment of the situation regarding my new job, she makes an assumption.  My chief economic gain was due to sharing ALL expenses with DW.  I had a roommate I could trust.  I had a roommate that cared about the children.  I had a roommate that gave of herself to me and my children like no other - not something I was going to get by putting an ad in the classifieds, right?  And ultimately, I would have no less time with the children that I would have moving across town from PEW.  That’s reality.

From my preparation for the hearing:

Gloria states that PEW needs financial help from her sister in order to be able to live, and yet minimizes Mister-M’s financial issues if he had to live in the same area with no financial help. PEW makes approximately $32k a year, plus $1,250 per month in child support, plus $200 per month in temporary spousal support, and childcare in addition to the financial assistance from her sister, while Mister-M makes barely makes a net income of $1,500 a month after paying taxes, child support and childcare.

Mister-M may not be earning significantly more at his current position, but there is room for growth, whereas at his previous position he was at the highest position currently possible, and the company has now gone down to a voluntary salary reduction of a four day work week, presumably due to significant financial problems and the possibility exists that there is preparation for closing the company without a significant financial investor/partner company.

For all of those who doubted the veracity of my story, and the list is long, including family members, the Judge, the attorneys, PEW herself, among others - I would like to point out that in the aftermath of my analysis, planning, and preparation, the following factual events occurred supporting my story:

• I was promoted at the new job within a year and given a good raise after which I made more than I was making at the company I left.
• The company I left had layoffs and was ultimately sold by the family that owned it for more than 60-years.

My assessment of my own personal financial and employment situation was SPOT-ON and not merely convenient fabrication to “cover” my sole desire to get a regular piece-of-ass in another state.  That said, what I didn’t see coming was that the company I went to would shut down, pack up, and move across the country leaving me unemployed in 2007.  Can’t plan for everything, I suppose.

Gloria, about LM:

He tended to minimize the significance to the children of the loss of weekly contact with him and the impact that being separated from their mother for long periods during the summer would have on them. He denied that the children’s behaviors may indicate adaptation problems and stated “PEW has always had problems managing the children because she is so inconsistent.”

This first half of that paragraph is patently false.  The latter half - I assure you, I’m correct, Gloria is wrong.  Everyone can sit there and pass judgments about what is having the most impact on appropriately managing the children looking from the outside-in.  It’s easy and “clinical” to put forth a generally accepted assumption about separation and co-parenting “enjoyment” and all that.  I don’t need a psyche degree to make the following assessment:  If the children’s behavior with the mother is not any different post-separation as it was before separation, then the separation isn’t driving the behavior the children show towards the mother - it’s the mother’s parenting style.

This is another example where the evaluator’s opinion is put forth as fact or more worthy of consideration than anyone else’s assessment.  I had 10-years of daily interaction with which to make my assessment of the situation and support it.  Gloria had about 3 hours.  This is the fundamental problem with custody evaluations.  They talk to people for a few hours and GUESS, if they even do that.  Custody evaluations are about the only clinical sessions I can think of where a general assessment is made about people and recommendations that will have such a profound effect on multiple lives - are done in a matter of a few hours.

From my preparation for the hearing:

Mister-M doesn’t minimize the effect of his move on the children, he simply states that the amount of time he has with his children would significantly be the same if he had moved to [closer place] or into the city of [closer place] as the custody agreement would have been roughly the same. Mister-M knows all too well the impact the current logistics may cause the children anxiety. Mister-M specifically stated in one of the sessions that he also realizes that, in addition to the children, PEW may also have trouble adjusting to being away from the children for a time as he has experienced himself at times. Further, Mister-M’s limited choices of residential location in the aftermath of the sale of the marital home and his obligations for support and childcare would most certainly mean a loss of weekly physical contact with the children. Mister-M has maintained daily phone calls with only the rarest exceptions. Daily contact with the children has always been a priority and will remain a priority for Mister-M.

The move to [home state] allows him the opportunity to provide financially for his children while giving them a loving home in a great community when they are with him, rather than living in a 2 bedroom apartment in a rundown neighborhood and never being able to vacation or even take the boys out for dinner, not to mention saving for their college education. Gloria contends that the move to [home state] has no positive implications for the boys, yet fails to take into account what their life would be like if Mister-M had to find a home in [custody state]. She also fails to take into account the relationships they have built in [home state], the type of home they enjoy, the safety and security of a gated community with lots of facilities and activities planned for right in the community itself and the positive experiences Mister-M can now work to afford or better be able to provide in the future by being able to save just a little bit for the boys.

Despite the FACT that I actually acknowledged each one of these issues openly and honestly in the sessions, you wouldn’t know that from what she wrote. Thankfully, in one of the sessions I did jointly with DW, this was discussed, too - so at least I had a witness to a portion of what I wrote above.

Gloria, about LM:

LM’s love and bond with the children appeared genuine.

Of all of things in the report, would you believe that this sentence pissed me off the most?  Call me paranoid or jaded, but I read that and can’t help but add onto the end of that sentence, “…but it might not be!” You won’t see the love and bond of mom referred to in such a manner.  It’s just a foregone conclusion that it’s genuine, I suppose.  That’s to be expected when you’re under constant assault by PEW and “the experts” and the “authorities” in the effort to separate me from the kids.  You get ultra-sensitive about such comments.

Gloria, about LM:

In the year following the termination of his first marriage he was married to PEW. In the year of their separation, he has begun to rebuild with DW. Part of what he appears to need to “survive” post-divorce is a strong connection with a female in his life.

Is there something wrong with falling in love with someone, bonding with them, and wanting to create a life with them? In case you haven’t been following closely, she makes what appears to be a knock on my relationship with DW. However, she makes absolutely no knock, in fact, she doesn’t even bother to mention the fact that PEW’s relationship history is EXACTLY the same as mine.

From my preparation for the hearing:

Gloria’s contention that Mister-M needs a female “to survive” is demeaning and ridiculous considering the fact that PEW has made almost exactly the same relationship decisions as Mister-M over the same period of time. They both received their first divorce decrees just days apart while already dating each other, and PEW is already seeing someone who “wants a serious relationship.”  To be more precise and using Gloria’s own language: In the year following the termination of her first marriage she was married to Mister-M. In the year of their separation, she has begun a relationship with Kevin. Part of what she appears to need to “survive” post-divorce is a strong connection with a male in her life.

Now, let’s set aside the fact that I didn’t marry PEW until more than 2 years after I split from my first wife, the important part of my issue with this point is - it’s a negative commentary that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my parenting skills and has absolutely zero negative consequences for the children.  So, what purpose does such a commentary have other than to force allegedly negative portrayals of father where none truly exist as they pertain to parenting the children?  It’s uncanny, in my experience, the lengths that custody evaluators will go to portray a father in a negative light - even interjecting issues into their report that are either unproven or irrelevant.

Gloria, about PEW:

PEW likewise is struggling with adapting to post-divorce life. She has managed to purchase a single-family dwelling, but by the end of the Custody Evaluations, Inc. process, she reported that it is necessary that her sister reside with her in the new home to assist her with household expenses. Further, while her parenting style may be materially different from LM’s, his absence creates a void where the children can, and will, challenge her authority more vigorously, thus, reducing her effectiveness. Her sense of powerlessness was evident as her problem-solving ability around this issue was stunted. She recommended that LM simply move back to the area.

There is that “blame Mister-M” phraseology again.  I reiterate - no one acknowledges that the parenting arrangement was not going to be fundamentally different than if I had stayed in the area given my options for residence locally.  It was going to be essentially the same!  Even if I had gotten every single weekend awarded, 2-4 extra days per month wasn’t going to change how PEW parented and how the children responded to her parenting style.  Let’s recap:

• PEW bought a house that she admittedly can’t afford, even with what I was paying her per month.
• PEW allows a substance abusing, diagnosed mentally ill sister who is untreated, to move into the home to help make ends-meet.
• Her parenting sucks.  She’s “ineffective” (says Gloria), she’s “powerless” (says Gloria), and her “problem solving ability is stunted” (says Gloria).
• She doesn’t want me to have more parenting time, but also wants me to “move back to the area.”

Why, so she can drive by my home with the kids in the back of the car waving to me while cheering, “HAAA, you don’t have them!  Pay me more money!  Thanks, BYE!” ??? These must be clear benefits to the children, right?  After all, Gloria did write about me: “What is troubling is that LM’s relocation does not appear to provide S1 and S2 with any clear benefits.”

• Nevermind the active, willing, able, loving father.
• My partner loves and cares about the children - and is very active with them as well.
• I earn more money and lived in a much better community.
• Nevermind that Gloria described my parenting skills as “excellent.”
• I didn’t have an unstable, substance abusing, mentally ill family member living with me and the children.  Not to mention her own abusive, alcoholic father - among others who are her “support” system.

No clear benefit?  This is all from Gloria’s OWN report and we are supposed to take these evaluators and evaluations seriously?  How the hell can anyone take a conclusion that there is no substantial benefit to the children after writing what she’s written about PEW’s PARENTING and her living/residential situation?

If you can’t figure out that Gloria ultimately turned about to be one of those who believe I moved solely to chase DW without regard for the children or finances or anything else, you’re not reading closely enough.

Gloria on her recommendations:

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.

Oh, where to begin.  The recommendation leaves me as a non-custodial parent, but does offer me quite a bit more time during the summer and other school breaks.  The first item of interest, while forcing me to spend one of my school year custodial weekends in [custody state] due to concerns over the amount of travel for the children - also gives me every other school break and allows it in [home-state].  There are a lot of school breaks and days off extending weekends.  This increases the travel time for the children.  The report and recommendations make almost no sense.  It is so full of contradictory statements and information that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and confounding.

My (sarcasm) favorite part is that PEW is required to help with the driving when I’m just a few miles from her, but not when I’m 200-miles from her.  So much for the kids’ safety.

From my preparation for the hearing:

Spending one weekend a month “locally” in [custody state] causes considerable problems for Mister-M and the boys. Most importantly – it brings another experience of upset and unfamiliarity to the boys’ lives. What kind of positive interaction could they possible have with their father living out of a hotel room for 2 nights and 2 days? Further, It puts a significantly increased financial strain on Mister-M to afford two nights in a hotel, 3 meals a day, plus whatever activities to keep the boys engaged as they won’t have all of the toys, games, etc that they have readily available at their home in [home state]. It also precludes visits to the children’s paternal grandmother (who lives in [nearby state]) and paternal grandfather (who lives in [another nearby state]) as Mister-M may be inclined to do. As stated before, Mister-M brings home barely $1,500 a month after child support and childcare. He can’t afford a hotel at $100 a night, 7 meals at $100 conservatively, plus activities, and also be expected to afford his mortgage and normal living expenses. While Mister-M has family in the area, they all have family and schedules of their own and are not always able to host three additional people. It also seriously inhibits their ability to visit other family, like their Grandmother and their Grandfather, as well as the family they have made with his girlfriend including her sister and nephew that the boys enjoy spending time with in [custody state locality several hours away]. It also takes away the chance for the boys to feel like they have an actual home in [home state], a house that was purchased with the children in mind, the ability to form meaningful relationships in the neighborhood, and the ability to participate in scheduled activities like sporting teams. Mister-M often spends time in [custody state] with the boys, as they visit his family members, but wishes to make these decisions on his own based on what is best for the children and himself. Gloria never mentions what problems are caused with the traveling time that she wishes to minimize. She never mentions any issues that the boys themselves have with the traveling, because they haven’t expressed any. They usually enjoy themselves immensely, playing road games with their father and oftentimes with his girlfriend and her children who make the trip with them. Gloria also doesn’t mention any problems with the boys traveling with their mother, which they do many weekends they are with her including 4-hour round trips to [nearby state] among other distant destinations to visit family and friends. It would only seem fair that if traveling is so strenuous on the boys, that the travel time they do with PEW should be minimized to once a month as well.

Her recommendation and custody plan are beyond absurd.  The report, in fact, reminds me of someone scrambling to finish a book-report that is due at school the following day.  I can almost see the evaluator saying, “Oh shit!  This report is due to tomorrow and I have to throw something together or I’m going to get a zero!” How many times has she made a negative out of situations that are almost identical to situations that confront the PEW?  Let’s see:  There are the relationships (irrelevant).  There are the travel concerns (relevant but very similar to what PEW is normally inclined to do).  There is her contention that my move causes the problems with PEW’s parenting successes and failures, but no mention about PEW’s filing for divorce and moving across town is what precipitates everything.

However, the MOST IMPORTANT PART (one would think) that is the crux of any custody issue - is parental fitness.  It is without question that, all other things aside, Gloria’s assessment of PEW’s parenting ability and her ability to manage her anger are seriously suspect.  Gloria’s assessment of my parenting ability is nothing short of glowing.  Her conclusion?  It’s in the “best interests of the children” for them to stay with the shitty parent.  Good call, Gloria!

Oh, and the hearing? There wasn’t one. We went to court, appeared before Judge Contempt and after reading Gloria’s report, she pronounced that she wasn’t going to hear the case today. Because Gloria’s report failed to indicate that my petition was for primary custody and focused only on the summer, regardless of how she ruled, there were “built-in appeal grounds” for each party. Therefore, we were going to have to go through another custody evaluation. Yes, I’m serious. However this time, and right there in the courtroom, I insisted it would be a private evaluation as I was not going to use the racket-group, Custody Evaluations, Inc. again. PEW agreed.