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.

The month of May 2004 saw little to no documented communication and my notes on that period are scarce. In August of 2006, I had submitted to my attorney #2 a “timeline of events since the divorce process began” to try to get her up to speed. I also tried to coordinate this timeline to refute PEW’s oft-repeated contention that I didn’t care about the kids, just the money… an assertion that was clearly projection and could be supported specifically or through “circumstantial evidence” of her conduct (and the timing thereof). I’ll roll out the 1st six-months of 2004 as a review and look ahead at what would come of 2004 when the mess really ramped-up.

She moved into a nice apartment and took very little from the marital home with her. She bought ALL new furniture for the entire apartment, likely on credit card(s), based upon the belief that it wouldn’t be long before the windfall her attorney assured her she would be getting would come through.

Interestingly enough, she came to me on moving day (May 5th, 2004) because she didn’t have enough money to pay the movers. Doing “the right thing” - I bridged the shortfall for her on the promise I would get paid back (yeah, right).

We pretty much exchanged the children in May according to her work schedule and I guess she was more or less focused on getting settled in the apartment and chatting with her attorney who was definitely a negative-advocate whipping her into a frenzy.

From the book Splitting: Protecting Yourself when Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist (which I’ve reviewed, just click this link) I offer the following excerpt detailing the “Negative Advocate Attorney.”

NEGATIVE ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS

As described throughout this booklet, anyone can be a Negative Advocate if they assist a Blamer in promoting their cognitive distortions and negative, often abusive behavior.

Some attorneys are habitual Negative Advocates. They try to take most of their cases to court. They represent whatever their client says as true, with little or no skepticism or investigation. Essentially, they are representing their client’s cognitive distortions or “negative thoughts.”

This is comparable to representing a drunk while they are still under the influence - and accepting what they say as true.

Negative Advocates focus their attention on the judge. They treat each issue as a win-lose contest, with the goal of winning the most at court. Time is spent primarily preparing for court, waiting at court and presenting (”arguing”) the case.

They generally do not have close client relationships. They often impress their clients, especially at the beginning of the case with their tough talk and seeming support for their clients’ allegations and excuses.

The methods of Negative Advocates are adversarial from the start. They are focused on advocating for their client’s “position,” rather than understanding and solving their client’s “problems.”

They focus on gathering negative evidence about the other party because the negative usually weighs more in the adversarial process. Subpoenas are routinely issued, depositions routinely taken, and other forms of “discovery” pursued, often with no real goal to gather information.

Intimidation tactics are common. They treat their client as “all good” and the other party as “all bad.” They often consider themselves as all good (or smart) and the other attorney as all bad (or stupid).

Negative Advocates seem to minimize contact or negotiations with the opposing attorney (or unrepresented party), as they prefer the threat of going to court.

In court, their goal appears to be to split the parties into “good spouse” and “bad spouse” in the eyes of the judge. They will raise minor issues and make them sound highly negative. They will minimize major issues and make them sound insignificant or untrue.

There is an appealing strength to their presentations and aggressive manners. They can be charming–or hostile and deceitful –to win a point. However, their tone, lack of empathy, and all-or-nothing manner may eventually be turned against their clients.

This excerpt could have been written exactly about PEW’s 1st-attorney (and quite frankly, her 2nd-attorney, too). You will see almost every single characteristic in the words/language of PEW and her attorney throughout. If you’re a regular reader, you probably already recognize the tactics in past posts. Who will win. Who will lose. Whose attorney is smarter, more experienced, whose attorney is an idiot. It’s all there, right out of the Splitting book.

The following timeline demonstrates the chain of major events and summarizes the motivation behind each. You will notice that PEW is consumed by continued negative engagement of me as she was throughout the course of our marriage. You will notice that the benefit of the children is secondary to the benefit of PEW and her desire to continue abuse and harass me as well as do things solely for her own financial benefit and my financial detriment. At this time, PEW is working every-other evening at [her workplace] as well as Saturdays and Sundays.

• January 2004 – PEW informs me that she is going to file for divorce. With her attorney encouraging her, PEW also lets me know that her attorney has informed her that she will be able to obtain “at last 60% and quite possibly 70%” of all of assets.

• Late January 2004 – we discuss the children’s future, specifically, their education. We agree that they will continue to go to [their current school].

• February 4th, 2004 – PEW registers S1 for [Something] Elementary in [where we live].

• February 2004 – I am served my divorce papers.

• February 26th, 2004 – we discuss the forthcoming appraisal and settling the house.

• April 1st, 2004 – During a phone conversation, PEW tells me that her attorney’s advice to her was to quit her job and find something that was full-time day shift so that I would have to pay daycare costs. I follow-up that phone call with an email which was saved in my sent folder and reads: After our phone conversation, I couldn’t help but wonder whose best interests either you, your attorney, or both have in mind with regard to the advice that you quit your job and find something during the day with the specific purpose of making it so that I “have to pay for half of daycare.” It’s one thing if you find a comparable job, which I’m sure you’re trying to do… and if you get it, great. But I find it unconscionable that you believe that daycare is a better place for the children… and I find it disgusting that your lawyer would recommend such a thing for the sole purpose of making sure that I had to “pay” for something that for the immediate future, wouldn’t have to (and nor would you). Neither of you have the best interest of the children in mind, that much is for sure given that this piece of advice is just over-the-top disgusting. I couldn’t let that “piece of advice” go by without telling you what I thought about it.

• May 5th, 2004 – PEW moves out to an apartment in [apartment town]. Shortly thereafter, she files a petition for child support. She also informs me that she wants to switch S1 to Catholic school. Her reasoning is because I will have to pay most of the tuition and she can just get help from her parents. She told me that she was going to do “whatever it takes” to
make sure that I don’t stay in the marital residence. Sometime prior to moving out, she stole my firearms and would not disclose where they were.

• June 2nd – We have a support conference. PEW and her counsel were asking for child-support money based upon 50/50 joint custody. As PEW’s then work schedule showed and supported my notes in my calendar, I had the boys 60% of the time during the month of May. Her schedule was not slated to change and for the summer, I would have had the children for 60% of the time in June, July, and August as well. Upon discovering that given that I had the boys 60% of the overnights and she would have to pay child support, she chose to litigate the matter. Our hearing was scheduled for July 14th. PEW initiates litigation.

• June 9th – she informs me that she had her schedule changed at work that effectively had her working 2nd-shift on Friday, a double-shift on Saturday, and a double-shift on Sunday. Her motivation for working such a grueling schedule was to ensure that we had no choice absent a formal custody agreement but to manage a 50/50 schedule, which I was agreeable to. I had no choice, PEW would be gone all weekend long so she kept the boys overnight during the week and I kept the children all weekend and every other Monday night to ensure I had the boys 50% of the time. Her motivation for the change to such a grueling schedule was to ensure that she received child support money. She also sued me for full custody of the children. PEW initiates litigation. Her motivation for doing so was to be able to try to get even more money and, knowing how much I loved our children, losing them would have a devastating impact on me. I countersued for primary custody approximately one- to two-weeks later. Also, in an effort to avoid court, I enter into an agreement to pay child support according to PA Guidelines for a 50/50 custody arrangement. She informs me that she is intending to switch to full time day work when the children start school and that S2 will be put into daycare.

• June 23rd, 2004 – PEW calls me distraught over not being able to handle the children. She says she wants a settlement of $30,000 and will give me primary custody of the children.

• June 25th, 2004 – I inform PEW that I want primary custody of the children (in addition to discussing settlement possibilities. She refuses all offers (both documented and undocumented) vowing to “never let me keep that house.” She claims this despite our discussion that litigating the matter will only result in both of us ending up with less than what the settlement offers would yield (and this ultimately proves true), but she succeeded in making sure that the children and I would need to be uprooted again instead of maintaining the same schools, neighbors, friends, logistical simplicity, etc.

• June 28th, 2004 – I inform [my lawyer] that PEW has changed her mind about settling and giving me primary custody of the children.

The highlighted areas above demonstrate two main points: 1 - Who was responsible for initiating most of the litigation. 2 - Who was making their moves based upon trying to get the most money.

The June 9th entry is where I make one of my first major mistakes (that’s to say… during the divorce and custody proceedings). I actually did have a choice. I didn’t have to simply adjust the custody schedule because she changed her work schedule. However, I was a bit green when it comes to matters such as this, and I also didn’t know at that point that, in addition to changing her work schedule, the same day she filed for custody of the children. Also, my attorney failed to consider that I didn’t have to do any such thing, either, but he was operating on my (completely wrong) feeling that, other than a few details, this still wasn’t going to be a very lengthy process.

If that doesn’t set off alarm bells for anyone reading this situation, I don’t know what would. The reality is, had I agreed to pay child support at that conference based upon a 50/50 schedule rather than point out that I already had primary custody of the children based upon the month of May and the anticipated schedule until school started, I might have faired better. Hindsight is always clear, but the reality is, it was a struggle to maintain the household and pay child support at the number I was paying it and pay temporary spousal support (which was a crime, she made good money, but that’s the way our “system” works), and so on.

I was still hopeful of sharing custody and at no time did I ever consider that she would be filing for sole/primary custody of the children. I can remember getting that notification and it was like a karate kick right in the stomach. Obviously, from there it just escalated and I filed a counter-petition a week later for the same. The war had begun.

Fast-forward to Timeline Part II.