What could her game plan possibly be?

[Nope]

DH's uBPDex was ordered by the court two years ago to get counseling and give DH proof that she has done so. This was part of a larger order giving DH physical custody and uBPDex specific (somewhat limited) visitation. She was given one weekend a month in our state, which she has never used and every other major holiday break in her state. The order says nothing about summer visitation but says she can have other visitation by agreement of the parties. Leaving the ball in DH's court to make the decision.

Since last summer she has consistently stated that she wants six weeks of summer time because that's what DH got back when they had a parenting plan. DH has told her no because she hasn't followed the order and gone to any counseling. In fact, we have an upcoming court date for Contempt for her failure to comply with the counseling provision of the order. Instead DH has only been giving her two weeks in the summer since the order gives her two weeks at Christmas every other year and the court was obviously less concerned about her having shorter periods of visitation.

Every single time DH brings up her failure to attend counseling she completely acts as though it was never mentioned and doesn't exist. This is very strange for her because she has some spin story or excuse for everything else she does or doesn't do. But no matter how many times the counseling issue comes up she continues on as though it was never brought up. She never tries to argue. She just accuses DH of not working with her to make sure she gets time with the kids and literally acts like the counseling order doesn't exist and was never spoken of.

So, what could possibly be her play in court for the contempt hearing? This issue is going to be front and center. It won't be avoidable when she is on the stand. She certainly can't address her minimal summer visitation without giving a satisfactory answer to the court about why she hasn't complied even after two years. I keep thinking she must know something we don't... .

[livednlearned]

I wonder if she is attending counseling and doesn't want to let on until the final hour, sort of a "I told you I was in counseling" to make it look like you were denying visitation while she was complying?

Or, she went to counseling and was diagnosed with something she is afraid to admit, and doesn't want it to get out?

[Thunderstruck]

I kind of feel like either she's going to go for a session or two and play like she's been going all along... .or... .she just won't show up for the hearing at all.

[Nope]

Thanks for replying. The thing is, the order says she must go and provide DH with proof she has done so. DH denied her request for six weeks last summer based on her failure to get counseling and just denied again for the same stated reason. It would look very odd in court that he keeps denying her the time and yet she never says "but I am going". The only thing we ever heard on the subject was back during Spring of 2015 when she told the GAL that she didn't need to go because she was "in a good place".

I do honestly believe she has some idea that if she went she'd probably get a diagnosis. I'm not sure she hasn't gone before this and gotten a diagnosis that she has never told anyone about. My MIL vaguely thinks she remembers uBPDm admitting to her she was diagnosed as bipolar back when she and DH were married, but couldn't swear to it. I get why she'd be avoiding the counseling. What I don't get is what she thinks she's going to tell the judge. Though now that I think about it, she's gotten several continuances and she may not be convinced yet that she'll ever have to tell a judge anything.

Thunderstruck - That was my thought until she got herself an aggressive lawyer a week before our last court date (and therefore got another continuance because he needs time to review the case). Prior to that it looked like she was going to hide since we are also asking for CS to be recalculated as she has a better job. We ask several questions in Discovery that should give us some clue what is going on by mid month.

[david]

My ex emailed me saying she was getting hip replacement surgery in January of 2017. She wanted to know if I could take our boys for at least two weeks for her recovery. I said yes and wanted to know the dates so I could get my schedule in order. That was in November. I heard nothing and asked two days after Christmas. She said she didn't have the dates but when she did she would let me know. I emailed again the first week on January. She said she was still getting surgery in January. I emailed again four days before the end of January and she said she was still getting surgery in January 2017 and would let me know the dates. I heard through a source, by pure chance, that the surgeon she went to see told her she didn't need surgery. Her feelings are her facts.
I would stick to the order that she get counseling and DH gets proof. Nothing further to discuss. If the kids ask because uBPDx says something to them you can simply reply what the judge ordered and by not following the order you would be in contempt of court. You could add that judges don't make decisions like that lightly.

[Nope]

So she feels like she's fine and does have to go so therefore she is fine and doesn't have to go, even though the court order states she must? It's an interesting strategy, let's see how it works out for her.

Actually, I guess that makes sense. She's always been one to scream about what the court order entitles her to so I've assumed she takes it very seriously. But it appears she only takes it seriously as far as what she's supposed to get, but not what she is supposed to do.

[livednlearned]

So she feels like she's fine and does have to go so therefore she is fine and doesn't have to go, even though the court order states she must? It's an interesting strategy, let's see how it works out for her.

This strategy didn't work out for my ex. He lost custody eventually.

I wonder if what you are seeing is psychosis. With my ex, the greater the threat to his fragile sense of self, the more he appeared psychotic.

In his case, it wasn't like his sentences trailed off and he stared into space, or seemed afraid of things no one else could see. He spoke in a normal voice and followed normal social conventions. The psychosis was more about what he said than how he said it. He matter of factly presented facts that didn't add up, and while he seemed to sense he was on thin ice in his thinking, I don't believe it's because he recognized the fallacy of his thinking, I think it's because people responded in ways that suggested something was wrong. And he was genuinely puzzled about what part of his thought process might be wrong.

[Nope]

L&L - It might go that way if she's pushed too hard. But I have yet to see it. In court it's usually her lying very easily and smoothly or just plain being a bit too slippery to pin down. I've found that the most important first step in court is proving with solid evidence that she is a liar. Otherwise we are stuck with her word having as much weight as DH's.

But this brings up my greatest fear: That even if what she is saying doesn't make logical sense and clearly can't be true that she'll say it so matter-of-fact that it'll be believed. Did you ever worry that even though what he said made no sense that it would be overlooked because of the way he said it? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks someone has to be acting hysterical to be really seen as crazy. (Sadly, that makes sense with my own upbringing. Everything that came out of my own mother's mouth was believed until she became hysterical and then and only then did the professionals panic.)

[livednlearned]

Did you ever worry that even though what he said made no sense that it would be overlooked because of the way he said it?

Oh god yes.

And a lot was overlooked.

Tho, in your case it does sound like things caught up to her, and the judge began to rule in H's favor.

In my experience, once that happened, it became very difficult for ex to turn things around. He just wasn't organized enough in his thinking or actions to get an end goal in place, other than trotting us back to court once a month for who knows why.

The burden was on him to show that he had complied with the prior order(s), and he just could not do that.

Hopefully the same thing is true of your case.

[david]

Another thought, since he did not comply with the court order can you request that additional pieces/sanctions be added to the order to protect the child. I don't think the word sanctions would be the word to use in court since it denotes a punishment. Finding a way to raise the bar should be part of your thinking this time. Minimizing contact, worded better, until ex complies with the order, supervised visitation only, or what you believe would be in the child's' best interest. Having reasons for it too would be helpful.
I have a friend that just was awarded her grandson with full parental rights and the dna mom was told by the judge that she no longer has a child. All rights were taken from her. She is not even allowed to call the grandmother to talk to the boy. If she comes to her house the judge said that grand mom is to call the police and the dna mom will be arrested. The dna mom was ordered to get weekly drug tests and also go to counseling. She was given three months to comply. An additional two months occurred because of various delays and she did nothing that was ordered.

[Nope]

The days of us having to worry about the kids physical safety are over. Partially because they are teenagers and partially because uBPDm is in a long term relationship with her most recent baby daddy who appears to be normal range and who has joint custody of his own child. Drugs were never an issue but poor decision making that put the kids in situations where they could have been hurt or were not properly cared for used to be ongoing. The problem these days is that they come back defiant and a mess and grades drop. She also grills them for information while they are there and does what damage she can to our relationship with them. But putting a quantitative weight on emotional damage is much more difficult.  

We've found that over shorter periods of visitation she can hold it together enough to not outright emotionally abuse them. The kids obviously very much want to see their mom, even if SS never really gets the one on one time and attention he desperately craves from her. She gets very little visitation as it is and I don't think having it reduced further is going to help anything as the kids also become very ansty and difficult and grades start to drop if they feel like they don't have a clear answer about when they'll get to see her again. It's sort of a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

Mostly what we want is for her continued demands for six weeks to be officially shut down. We want the court to acknowledge that she isn't doing what she is supposed to be doing. Otherwise she could bring an action to modify the order to give her six weeks of summer visitation and we'd be on the defensive with DH having to justify why he hasn't already been giving her ample time. From our experience in court this far, "the order doesn't say I have to" only works when a mother says it. We want it documented that we tried to remedy her non-compliance.

[ForeverDad]

The "I want my 6 weeks during summers because you had 6 weeks during summers in the old order" is meaningless.  The order didn't attempt any reciprocity between orders.

However, you're right, mothers generally get default preference, even credibility, over fathers.  Her history and father's current order being solidly in his favor ought to tip the scales toward him.   But we've all learned there are always surprises with court.

My last time in court the magistrate, which I consider the best of the ones there, made decisions that showed leniency toward mother.  When considering going from equal time to majority time for father, the magistrate wrote she would give mother "one more try" by letting her keep equal time during the summers.  A footnote in the decision notes "Although the court is inclined to order Mother to have individual counseling, there is no evidence that Mother has the funds to participate in such counseling or insurance to cover the cost."  (It was late 2013, what about Obamacare?)  Though the court refused to order child support be paid to father because "there was insufficient evidence to determine a child support order" it did order father to pay his share of the GAL fee but "Based upon the last worksheet available, Mother's responsibility for any part of the GAL fee is waived."