Determining what's best for the kids... Three steps forward, X steps back.

[Ventak]

Quick summary:

• Wife arrested for domestic violence after going off meds.  DHS involved.  DHS agent tells me she is unstable.
• Criminal court imposes NC order, still open.
• I get a civil restraining order, get custody of children, she gets supervised visitation.

Forward 2.5 months:

• Supervisor (Niece) says she does really well with children.  Notices big improvement with her when she is with them.  Says she is learning from watching her with the twins.
• Niece says she was "lost" when she moved in with her, but is much better now.
• She has a job and an apartment.
• She is diligent about her classes (DBT based) and takes responsibility for:  Financially abusing me; Excusing her violence, when she knows it is wrong and there are other options; Placing the most negative intent on my behaviors, when good intention could be there.
• According to niece, she is seeing a psychiatrist
• DHS closes case.  I ask agent for advice on supervision and parenting time.  Agent says she can't give advice, but if it was her... it is best for the children to get more time with Mom.  She will probably be more comfortable without someone watching over her all the time.  Talk to your psychiatrist and get her opinion.  But that I know my children's needs and my wife better than anyone and only do this if they will be safe.  She also said that if my wife and I fight in front of the kids... (implying they will be taken)
• My Psychiatrist says that it's always best for the kids if they get time with both parents to build those bonds, and get different perspectives.  "But..." if there is abuse than it can go the other way.
• Niece gets full-time work and can no longer do the supervision regularly, and paying a supervisor is not feasible.  Choices are to lift supervision, or have her visitation be very spotty which will be bad for the twins.  It's a no-win scenario IMO, one I was hoping to avoid for the next two months when the judge will evaluate lifting the criminal NC order.

So, definitely three steps forward... but there has also been some lingering concern I have with her recent paranoia, and she hasn't had enough of the classes yet in my opinion.  I do think she is back to "baseline", or perhaps a little ahead..  But it is hard to know without being able to spend time with her.

Comparing to other posts on this forum, my BPDw is not at the severe end of the BPD spectrum... however she is comorbid Anti-Social PD which is likely where the violence comes in.  I've only ever seen her aim the violence at me, but given enough stress I do believe she is capable of dysregulating in front of the kids. 

I'm really struggling with this one.  I'm 95% confident that she will be just fine with the kids, especially if it is in smallish chunks not exceeding a couple days.  I also know that I will have lingering doubts for at least a couple years, and they will get that time with her even though I have lingering doubts.

Thoughts?

[PLEASE - NO RUN MESSAGES]

PLEASE - NO RUN MESSAGES This is a high level discussion board for solving ongoing, day-to-day relationship conflicts. Members may appear frustrated but they are here for constructive solutions to problems. This is not a place for relationship "stay" or "leave" discussions. Please read the specific guidelines for this group.

[kells76]

Do you have a regular babysitter? I think I recall that you have specialists working with your D (and S?).

Could either the babysitter or the specialist(s) "do their stuff" in a public location (like a park) and have that hour or so be Mom's time?

I would be reticent to have Mom come to your house to see the kids.

If you don't have a regular babysitter, how long does it take for your kids to get used to someone new?

[formflier]

You have an open NC order, so while there are some signs of improvement there are other items that sill need to be solved/completed.

I would strongly advise against "modifying" supervision or letting her have kids unsupervised.

So her current supervisor now has a job and can't do it that much or perhaps at all..that sucks.  This is an opportunity for her to "practice" her emotional regulation skills and show the world that she can handle setbacks.

Another 6 months out of 18 years of a child's life is NOT going to cause some irreparable harm to the mother/child bond.

"jumping the gun" and putting your wife in a situation she can't handle is very likely to cause further irreparable harm.

Resist all of your temptations to "fix this for her" or "make it easy for her".

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

I would be reticent to have Mom come to your house to see the kids.

This is absolutely not about her coming to the house to see the kids.  The no contact for me and the house will be in force for a minimum of two months, and from what I've been able to deduce from the internet is that four is more likely than two.  I also think that four fits just fine for her getting deeper into her classes and both of us being more ready for couples therapy, which we need whether we reconcile or not.  The criteria for removal in my state is that it is better for "the community", which is a much harder sell than "gosh judge, I miss her".

It is also not about fixing her... it is about what is the best for the kids.  My psychiatrist, the DHS agent, my attorney, and my research have indicated that for children at this age it is very important to have time with both parents.  Her training and many years of work experience is working with special needs children, so she also has advantages on that side that I can't provide.  And this is where I struggle...  When she is at her baseline she is a much better mom than I am, if that makes sense.  What I struggle with is the line between me being frustrated with her for putting us in this situation... and making sure the children's needs are best met.  I fear that I am erring on the side of frustration, which is not fair to the twins.

Unfortunately there isn't an owners manual for this situation.  The child experts are telling me it is best for the children to have more time with Mom unsupervised, and I have to take that seriously... and since they both know about her history, they both qualified it and placed it back on my shoulders.  This would be a lot easier if the state intervened, but they have found that there is not sufficient abuse/neglect to take it to the court system.  I was very transparent with DHS, so they certainly had the data to make a realistic determination.

[Ventak]

"jumping the gun" and putting your wife in a situation she can't handle is very likely to cause further irreparable harm.

This is exactly why I'm thinking unsupervised, but keep the hours constrained so she doesn't get into a situation of having to deal with the children for blocks of time.  I am very confident that she will do well with a 3 hour window 3-4 times a week.  My confidence goes down when I envision five straight days, and the stress that would add.

[formflier]

Where would she be with the kids "unsupervised"?

Why not let the circumstances that have fallen in her and your lap allow for a "test" of her newfound emotional strength?

It wasn't the other way around...

I would be much more open to this if the experts came to you and said this is a good idea..something to consider and subsequent to that circumstances changed.

Best,

FF

[kells76]

On a meta level, it's interesting that (if I'm reading this correctly) not one single professional has stepped forward to take responsibility for the position/outcome of "well, it'd be better for the kids to see Mom more". They have all put the decision (and responsibility) back on YOU. That makes me go, Hmmm.

If it were me, I'd feel frustrated too, that nobody else wants to step up and shoulder the responsibility, all the while saying "but it would sure be nice for the kids if they saw Mom!" If it's so good, then why not require you to do it? Instead of the wishy-washy "well I'm not telling you what to do, it's your family" kind of stuff.

OK, enough of that.

...

I get that your W does not have independent income, correct?

But, she could still (with the help of her team) come up with at least one idea for someone else to supervise visitation? I mean, is that something she is capable of?

If she is capable of brainstorming at least one person to supervise... and suggests the name to you... and you are OK with paying the person, if necessary... then that shows she is motivated to see the kids.

If she cannot even think of or Google one person to supervise... and it'd be "free" for her, because you could pay... and she has the support of a MH team... that would leave me wondering a lot of things.

So, what about putting the appropriate piece of the work back on her? OK, sure, maybe $$$ are tight for her right now. Fine, it could be appropriate for you to pay for supervised. But she needs to do her work too. Have it be her job to find another person.

If she can't even think of one person or Google one "supervised visitation center"... then there is no way in my mind she's ok for unsupervised... right?

Hope that line of thinking makes sense.

[formflier]

But, she could still (with the help of her team) come up with at least one idea for someone else to supervise visitation? I mean, is that something she is capable of?

Yes...let her solve a problem...even if it takes a while. 

What a good way of distilling down the issue...

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

On a meta level, it's interesting that (if I'm reading this correctly) not one single professional has stepped forward to take responsibility for the position/outcome of "well, it'd be better for the kids to see Mom more". They have all put the decision (and responsibility) back on YOU. That makes me go, Hmmm.

I think this is the end result of our litigious society...  I run into this all the time.

I get that your W does not have independent income, correct?

If she is capable of brainstorming at least one person to supervise... and suggests the name to you... and you are OK with paying the person, if necessary... then that shows she is motivated to see the kids.
If she can't even think of one person or Google one "supervised visitation center"... then there is no way in my mind she's ok for unsupervised... right?

She has a job which will cover her apartment, but I'm covering everything else.

I made the mistake of looking into supervision when her niece was unable to supervise for a week.  Supervision would cost about $1400 a month, and I tried all the closest ones and they are fully booked.  I read that in my county DV is up 67% since last year due to covid lockdowns.

I do see where you are going with this, but that is what I'm struggling with...  It feels like using the kids to get her to do something, not because it is in their best interest.

[formflier]

I get the "best interest" argument.   However you keep not addressing the "time" factor.

There is no rush here...or if there is..I've missed it.

Would it not be a good thing to have actual experience to check your wife's emotional resiliency?

And..it's not like you are "causing" this.  It's not "by your hand".  Life has handed an opportunity...see how that turns out.

It's not your job to save your wife from life and her choices...is it?

Yes yes..best for the kids, when you make that argument, please specifically address the time factor.

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

Thanks FF and Kells,

You have helped me clarify my thinking and I can probably present my struggle better.

The three experts have convinced me intellectually that what is best for the children is to go to unsupervised visits and expand the amount of time she has with the twins.  This is not at all the answer that I had expected to hear, and I was not emotionally prepared to come to that conclusion... so I'm fighting within myself.

It is critically important in my personal moral code that I not use the children against her, at any time for any reason.  While I don't feel that I intentionally have, given the circumstances and the data I had available at the time, I'm now wondering if I made a mistake in my original decision.  Again, I had no guidance or handbook to reference, just the driving need to protect the kids from a mother who was unhinged and the possibility of DHS putting them into foster care.  I did have the option of unsupervised visitation from the beginning, but chose not to.  I don't dwell on past decisions, but I do wonder if I chose correctly and/or should have gone to unsupervised earlier.

Now I find myself justifying keeping things in place longer, keeping hours limited, etc... using many of the same points that you both have made.  And they feel "wrong" to me somehow, intellectually... but oh so right emotionally.  Since I rarely listen to my emotional side, it is a scary place to be.

From a timing perspective, I'm off work next week and it's a good time to handle legal concerns without missing work (which I already feel I do too frequently).  Because of the NC order, I can delay it longer than that without reprisal, but the weight of having possibly made the wrong choice for the kids is pressing.

[kells76]

The three experts have convinced me intellectually that what is best for the children is to go to unsupervised visits and expand the amount of time she has with the twins.  This is not at all the answer that I had expected to hear, and I was not emotionally prepared to come to that conclusion... so I'm fighting within myself.

OK, that makes a ton of sense.

In our case, a parallel situation was that the kids' mom seemed to be trying to get the kids to schedule time with DH, instead of doing it herself. We talked to the kids' counselor (at the time) about it, and I was prepared to hear something like "she needs to step up and parent, and not make the kids do it, this is inappropriate". Instead, we heard "you need to come to terms with the fact that the kids are getting older, and it won't always be you and Mom scheduling for them". That was unexpected.

So your surprise, and the need to work with unexpected info, is relatable and totally makes sense.

...

It is critically important in my personal moral code that I not use the children against her

Understandable again. So, of course you are asking yourself "Am I doing this because it's best for the kids, or am I convincing myself it is, in order to hurt/punish/etc her, but retain a facade of the moral high ground?"

That too makes sense. I can relate to that -- a mantra of "whatever anyone else does, I choose integrity".

...

I'm now wondering if I made a mistake in my original decision.

Am I recalling correctly that someone from DHS told you, face to face, that if you let the kids be in that position again, they would be taken from you?

I did have the option of unsupervised visitation from the beginning, but chose not to.  I don't dwell on past decisions, but I do wonder if I chose correctly and/or should have gone to unsupervised earlier.

Again, this seems to connect to a lot of people in authority saying "well, it would be good/better if you did X, Y, and Z", but not taking responsibility for telling you to do that, and putting it all on you.

I wonder if you had chosen unsupervised and/or more time for Mom sooner, and God forbid "something happened", would you be in this same position but with the choices reversed? I.e., is the issue really WHAT you chose, or is it perhaps the second-guessing? Because I could imagine that if you went back in time, chose "unsupervised and more time" for Mom, and she lost it and, I don't know, did something violent... I just wonder if you'd be here anyway, still asking if you did the right thing.

You're so right that it's not clear cut and there's no guidebook. I'm glad you're "war gaming" it out here.

...

OK, now to get down to details (I may have mentioned that I'm usually a "trees" not "forest" kind of person):

Would you agree that right off the bat, supervised/no contact/low contact with Mom was "best" or "good"? I.e., in the immediate aftermath? I suspect we can both agree on that?

So maybe the question again isn't really "should I have immediately let Mom see them a lot unsupervised" but it is, as FF suggested, a timeline issue. If it was clear right off the bat that Mom needed stability and supervision, that was black and white, but now we are past that a little bit, professionals are hinting/obliquely suggesting other things, and it is a gray area.

Also consider the possibility that your "gut sense" or "vibe" or "feeling", the messages you get from yourself "justifying" limiting hours for Mom/keeping things in place... there is something valid and rational to that.

Just because a feeling/vibe/sense is inarticulable doesn't mean it's irrational.

You may just be getting information from yourself in an atypical way. Like you mentioned, your emotional side has been a bigger participant than usual lately. But, it's not like there is a firewall between "emotional side" and "rational side". Wisemind is a term that, briefly, denotes the meeting of the two. When we can notice our feelings, we are in "wise mind", which is engaging and activating our rationality to work together with our emotionality.

I have compassion for you as you experience the scariness of listening to your emotional side.

Can you notice that? Perhaps comment to yourself (as stilted as it may sound), "I notice myself feeling scared as I feel emotional"? That could be a way for you to find balance -- you're not denying your emotional side, yet you're not letting it "grab the steering wheel" and make decisions. It's balanced and managed by your rationality. It sounds like you abhor the thought of letting unchecked emotions "drive the car" of making decisions about the kids. Yet your "papa bear" emotions contributed to your kids' safety; that needs to be acknowledged. Let both sides of you meet in wise mind, and neither will hijack the other.

...

I guess that wasn't super detailed? Well, here I go!

It seems like a false dichotomy to have the kids' time with mom be either "officially supervised" or "unsupervised". I also see a distinction between supervision level and time length.

The spectrum of supervision runs from "official government facility" through "absolutely none". There are churches in my area that offer services in the middle -- not official government supervision (like a county worker etc), but entry-level trained lay people who will be an adult 3rd party in the room. I suspect $$$ would be much cheaper than $1400 a month. If you are leaning towards "unsupervised" and have some professional suggestions there as well, consider "stepping down" to lay supervision. Check some of the larger church denominations (Baptist could be a good start), I don't think they have any belief requirements to participate. Also consider if a local community college offers "family play" weekends through their child development department.

Consider doing some legwork on that research and then passing it to your W's treatment team. Again, it seems important to me that she be actually motivated to do her slice of the work to see the kids. No, she doesn't have to do 100% to make it happen, but neither do you.

I will just end by saying that it's not "using the kids against her" to wait for her to be her best self when interacting with them. It could actually be hurtful to her to be "set loose" with them with no support and no 3rd party before she has built the resiliency to parent with empathy and effectiveness. Your twins sound like delightful bundles of high energy and high needs. I cannot imagine it would be "kind" to her to say "here ya go, no support, hope you can do it for 24 hours!" before she has the tools and skills to even manage herself.

I might start to look at "can she coordinate her half of visitation" as a proxy for "does she have better tools and skills to parent with empathy and effectiveness".

...

Sorry if that was all over the place. Lots of thoughts. I hear you reaching out and wondering if you're doing the right thing. You are in an incredibly difficult situation and making the best decisions you can moment by moment with the information you have in that moment. It's natural to second-guess yourself and yet from an outside position I see nothing to raise any red flags. Your caution has been even handed and at an appropriate level given the circumstances. The issue is really the timing of moving to looser visitation, and consider that one can go from a 10 to a 0 over 2 steps (steep slope), 5 steps (shallower slope), or 10 steps (most gradual slope). The professionals are like "hey, you're at a 10,  how about trying a 0?" And you are wondering "should I move things to a 0 now?" But you have options about how fast you get there, and your kids will be OK if it's not this very instant.

Gotta stop inflicting all this on you...

kells76

[formflier]

For some reason..I've been struggling in this thread to create the analogy that seemed "at the tip of my tongue"

Kells76 example of "letting her do one thing" and then thinking about that finally got it together in my head..one of those "lightbulb moments"

Let me set the stage first.

The advice of kids to see their Mom is solid for "normal" adults (I doubt anyone would disagree).  Does that apply here?  Would anyone argue this is not "normal"?

I think it would be more helpful to think of this as you are Dad to "three children"...one of which appears to be an adult, yet throws tantrums like a child.  (fair enough?)

Here is the analogy of a child you are trying to make more independent...let's say teen that is struggling with autonomy.

"giving" them money is unlikely to incentivize them to run out and get a job..I mean...why work when it is handed to you.?

I see the same thing going on here.

Your wife very well  may be making strides with therapy.  So let's say she is "getting older" in her growth and now is ready for more.

Well...how do you provide support without removing the incentive for her growth?  (keep asking yourself this about all facets of your wife's life)

Your primary goal is NOT providing support...your primary goal is to promote growth or incentivize growth.  Do you want her to "be a teen forever"?

For money issues the generally accepted healthy advice is to provide support "after" the first couple of dollars.

So...for ever 5 dollars they make, you kick in 1 (the ratio can be changed, the point is their work influences or controls the support).  Probably wise to put a floor or ceiling to it..but the concept remains the same.

For your wife.  Let's assume she makes $1400 now (that's the floor)

For every 2 dollars she brings in over the $1400, up to say $2000 you will bring in a dollar.  That money can be used for "supervision".

Life has handed your wife a "blow"  and it may affect HER relationship with her kids.  NOT yours (is HER RELATIONSHIP entirely your business...? or should she own some or most of it?).  Let her solve that.  

You provide loving support...DO NOT PROVIDE SOLUTIONS.  Let her do that.

Months from now she will be able to look back and see what she accomplished and "feel proud" as opposed to potentially feeling shame over "what she couldn't do"...so you had to step in.

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

So... I "fortunately" have tendonitis in my elbow which somehow managed to cause either tendonitis or a tear in my rotator cuff... very painful.  I sent an email to my GP last night and they happened to get a cancellation and were able to see me today instead of 3 weeks later...

While there I asked for advice on this issue, and she was somewhat in the camp of what Kells is talking about.  Her advice was to take it from 10 to 9, see how it goes.. take it from 9 to 8, see how it goes.. make her prove she has the ability to handle the extra responsibility at each step before proceeding.  Her thoughts were that while she may seem okay now, what happens if "she loses the job she just got" and her stress level sends her off again.  Her advice is to give her time to be back on her meds for a while and prove stability and the ability to handle the extra stress.

So, I finally got an "expert" to validate my concerns, one that knows her much better than the others combined.  Now I'm worried that I'm just using this to justify, ... but I plan to follow this advice.

I realize that this is pretty much the same advice you both were giving, and I appreciated it intellectually... but for some reason hearing it from my doctor, who knows us both, made it more emotionally palatable.

Once again, I love this place, and truly appreciate the feedback.

After coming to those conclusions, I received the DHS case report.  Bleh  Everything from the local police was told exactly through the lens of her reality, and misrepresentations of what I told them spun in ways to match her reality.  The report from March made me out to be a bit loony, and "adamant about not having her arrested".  I don't think I would describe my saying "I'm not sure, can I wait until tomorrow to make a decision" as "adamant".  How he justifies putting that in the report when state law mandates arrest in this situation regardless of the victims wishes is a bit mystifying.  Everything from the caseworker was pretty much my reality... but they have to take both seriously... so I was in more trouble than I'd realized and my fears were correct.  Literally, we were "met" for every category of child removal except one... and the only reason we were not "met" on that one was the no contact and their belief that we would not violate it.

[formflier]

   Her advice was to take it from 10 to 9, see how it goes.. take it from 9 to 8, see how it goes.. make her prove she has the ability to handle the extra responsibility at each step before proceeding.  

Likely a point of clarity.  Did your doctor suggest you "helping her prove" or did your doctor say "let her prove".

A critical distinction. 

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

Likely a point of clarity.  Did your doctor suggest you "helping her prove" or did your doctor say "let her prove".

I asked specifically how I would know she was ready and the doctor said through observation... which is difficult as it comes 3rd hand.  Retracing my conversation with her she mostly said "show" and "see", I put it more into my own words with the "let her prove statement".

But I understand what you are saying.

[formflier]

But I understand what you are saying.

Good.

So your role in this process is...?

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

Good.

So your role in this process is...?

Best,

FF

My role as I understand it is to work with the supervisor to continue to monitor her progress, and lessen the supervision.  The doctor said to start with an hour.. so that would be half supervised, half not at first.  Then increasing days, etc..

Or do I misunderstand your question.

[formflier]

Or do I misunderstand your question.

Nope you understood it.

And pretty much got the answer right.  You are a "watcher".  NOT A SOLVER OR A SOLUTION.

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

 

As expected, she had another meltdown.  She found out that six weeks ago I let her sister come over and see the twins (the one she was living with after the arrest, but moved suddenly).  She was supposed to have a visitation today but cancelled it.  From what her sister told me, they had quite the fight, and will "never speak to each other again".  I believe the sister may be NPD.  My wife told her that she "had no sister", and that now she has no one at all.  (I've learned recently that she has burned bridges with the rest of her family, but I'm unsure how.)  My guess is that her sister told her that "Ventak let her see the kids, and that she could see them anytime"... as a way of hurting her.  My other guess is that she has cancelled visitation because she doesn't want me anywhere in her vicinity and wants to live alone with her pain so she can be the victim.

Our NC order allows us to communicate over text.  It's complicated but I think we can communicate in any way, but talking about the kids is clearly allowed, especially regarding visitation.  She has communicated infrequently, only about the kids, and almost only about visitations so I have done the same.  Her messages are vague so I have to "read between the lines" a little bit, and combine it with what her sister told me.  I had told her that I was going to petition the court to extend the hours per week from 4, and allow some unsupervised visitation.  After she cancelled the visitation she made a remark about her niece not doing supervision anymore and that she wouldn't be able to see the kids until she found another supervisor.  This confused me as I would have expected her to try to pressure me into getting unsupervised visits right away...

Also, for the past few weeks I've been sending pictures of the twins 4-5 times a week through her Niece, she said it helps her.  I sent pictures directly to her this morning since I'm unsure what is going on, and then she blocked me from iOS messaging (which can allow text messages (or not), just makes it so I can't tell if it was delivered or read).

So... I'm trying to validate her feelings, but put the responsibility for solving this problem she created in her hands.

Me:  I'm sure it's very difficult for you with the visitations pushed off.  Sorry you are going through that and are hurting.  I'm not sure how to proceed or help, so will let you take the lead and let me know if I can do something.  Until then I will continue sending pictures while you sort things out.

Her response:  Your RO stipulates that you designate all visitation; therefore, there is nothing for me to sort out.  Since I've exhausted my family and friends as options to facilitate, I'll wait to hear from you on visitation.

Couple problems there:  The RO states "Supervised Parenting Time - 4 Hours/week.  Respondent (her) to choose supervisor to be approved by petitioner (me) in good faith".  The RO also states "Other - Parenting time can change to unsupervised after safety clearance by a psychologist".

So, both aspects of parenting time were deliberately placed on her responsibility.  The options are literally:

• She finds a supervisor and I have to approve or disapprove, but I have to do so in good faith.
• She gets an evaluation by a psychologist and petitions the court to lift the supervision.
• I do everything for her, even though I'm not responsible and would be doing it as part of my "caretaker" dysfunction.

So, my initial thoughts are to respond vindictively or JADE.  And, frankly, I'm too disappointed that she melted down so quickly after showing progress and I'm too close to the situation to come up with a decent response...

Please help.

[GaGrl]

You could just send her the exact wording of the RO and let her sort it out.

You are under no obligation to stand on your head to solve her problems, which she created herself. I know it is difficult to wait, but it appears she needs room and space and time to take her next step.

[kells76]

Initial thoughts:

She found out that six weeks ago I let her sister come over and see the twins (the one she was living with after the arrest, but moved suddenly).  She was supposed to have a visitation today but cancelled it.  From what her sister told me, they had quite the fight, and will "never speak to each other again".

This kind of "bleed over", or having something emotional going on in one niche of life that impacts her response in another very separate area of life, sounds familiar. I.e., "normally" we have some boundaries (not solid walls, but something there) to separate out "gee, today sucked at work, but I recognize that I'm taking it out on a loved one, and I will try to stop". I suspect that for pwBPD, there aren't the usual psychological separations between "then" and "now", and "this" and "that". It all kind of melts together.

So, "normally", having an issue with her sister "should" have no bearing on whether she spends time with the kids. "Gee, it sucks that I'm having sibling issues... well, now it's time for me to pick up the kids and not take it out on them". But I am thinking there are not strong mental "cell walls" between the various aspects of her life. Things are bad with the sister? Things are bad EVERYWHERE in ALL of life. I think it can take a lot of mental strength for anyone to stop that "bleed over" and it sounds like your W doesn't have that right now.

...

Did she explicitly say "I am cancelling"? Or did she use vague, roundabout language to try to put it on you? DH's kids' mom is NOT straightforward and both passively waits for others to be specific, fights/bickers about specifics, and over responds in length but under responds in content. She does not take responsibility for scheduling choices.

Oh wait:

Her messages are vague so I have to "read between the lines" a little bit,

Uh huh, yes, that is very familiar.

After she cancelled the visitation she made a remark about her niece not doing supervision anymore and that she wouldn't be able to see the kids until she found another supervisor.  This confused me as I would have expected her to try to pressure me into getting unsupervised visits right away...

That's BPD for you. Expect the unexpected. And, sometimes, it could be an unconscious tactic to get needs met. SD13 does this (I suspect a learned behavior): she won't say "Can we go to the park tonight?" but will say "It would be nice to go to the park at night sometime". It kind of creates a "vacuum" where there is hope that someone else will step in to "fill the vacuum" and "read between the lines".

I would recommend not "filling the vacuum" that she has created, the "vacuum" here being: "Niece can't supervise any more... [here is the implied space] so you need to solve this for me".

Sometimes being very literal with those "baits" can help, as long as we can manage our own FOG feelings (I'm afraid she'll be sad if we don't go to the park, I feel like I am obligated to make her happy, I'd feel guilty for denying her something as simple as a park trip):

"Yes, it would be nice to go to a park at night"

"It's too bad that it's too late to go to the park tonight"

"I agree, going to parks at night is fun"

instead of

"Let's go to the park tonight" -- which is taking the "bait" of the implied request for rescue/"filling in the blank".

It rescues the person from the responsibility of articulating their own desires.

I'm trying to validate her feelings, but put the responsibility for solving this problem she created in her hands.

Sounds like you're doing that -- not rescuing her from the normal adult responsibility of articulating her own wants/needs/desires.

"Your RO stipulates that you designate all visitation; therefore, there is nothing for me to sort out.  Since I've exhausted my family and friends as options to facilitate, I'll wait to hear from you on visitation."

Wow, the tone of that sounds... familiar...

"It's not my fault... I went above and beyond... what else could I do... let me try to force you into the role of persecutor... you're the one denying X to me"

There are probably a couple of ways around this. I understand the compulsion to respond with JADE and frustration, as we are still there. I have had the false hope that if I could just use enough logic and explanation, it would convince DH's kids' mom that she was wrong. She has a "fact-proof screen" around her (thank you Eric Hoffer) so that is not effective. It's my job to be in touch with the reality that she is not in touch with reality.

Anyway, so, your question is:

How do you respond to this coming from her:

Your RO stipulates that you designate all visitation; therefore, there is nothing for me to sort out.  Since I've exhausted my family and friends as options to facilitate, I'll wait to hear from you on visitation.

We missed some time with the kids because we had a COVID exposure earlier in the year. Mom suddenly was all about the parenting plan (which she usually ignores, at best), because the PP didn't say anything about makeup time due to parent illness. So she thought she was justified in denying makeup time. Yes, she's a winner.

As frustrating as that was, she was kind of right -- there weren't any specifics, because of course the PP was written before a global pandemic   -- but that gave us something better:

"Oh... you are interested in following the parenting plan?"

This was new! We held on to that!

"We are also completely interested in following the parenting plan!"

Long story short we did work out some makeup time by citing new family court guidelines. But sometimes pwBPD can inadvertently, illogically, suggest doing something that they think will advantage them, but really advantages you.

So when she says "YOUR RO stipulates that you designate..."...

There it is!

"Oh... you are interested in following the RO to the letter? Me too!"

If the RO says she needs to pick a supervisor, great! Sounds like she wants to follow the RO!

If it were me, I might send back something like:

"Thank you for your commitment to following the RO. I agree with you that we both should follow it.

[send a screen shot of the RO here, with the options highlighted]

Once you send me the name of an appropriate supervisor to approve, I will be able to schedule your time with the kids. If I do not hear from you by mail, text or email, I will not be able to schedule your time with the kids."

And that's that. She is trying to make it your responsibility, and it's so clear that it is not. Resend the RO, be super explicit and succinct about what you are able and not able to do, and include that you are able to do Y once she does X.

I bet she is misinterpreting/conflating (whether deliberate or not) the scheduling of specific times with the selection of a supervisor. I.e., "you are in charge of visitation" is a misinterpretation of "you are in charge of scheduling". She, too, is in charge of visitation -- her slice of responsibility is selecting a supervisor. Your slice of responsibility is planning the time. You share responsibilities, and she is trying to use "slippery language" to make it "all your fault".

I would not ask "are you asking me to be in charge of selecting a supervisor". I just wouldn't open that door to take on her share.

Depending on the access you have to her treatment team, you could consider asking them for clarification as to if they have seen the RO. You could confirm with them that they and you are understanding it correctly and the same way. Perhaps, if you have that kind of relationship with them, comment that you want them to know that from your perspective, it looks like she is struggling to follow the part of the RO involving selecting a supervisor, and are they seeing that too.

If, then, her trxmt team is like "Yes, we have seen the actual RO, we understand it the way you do, and we also have noticed her struggling with that area"...

that might be as much as you can do for now.

...

Basically, yeah, if I got that kind of text that "implied" a desire to follow a legal document, I would use that angle to find agreement (yes we both seem to want to follow this), highlight the specifics, and reaffirm your boundary of "I will be able to do Y once I hear X from you". And then I wouldn't engage on that topic any more.

[kells76]

You could just send her the exact wording of the RO and let her sort it out.

  GaGrl and I on the same brainwave at the same time! Sorry for the cross post.

[formflier]

The wording of the RO is a gift.  Open and enjoy it.

I especially like the "me too" idea for following the RO.

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

I'm literally shaking and not breathing as I write this for her...  I'm writing in notes to copy into messenger when I'm ready to send it.  I usually respond very quickly, so I think taking my time to respond is giving her time to cool down and have a more productive conversation.  Part of me is also hoping that she sends a message that is a more reasoned approach before I take this step.  I realize that hope is somewhat delusional.

"It isn't clear to me what is going on with you, but I have been very sad that you are hurting.  I wish that we could talk so I could make sense of it."

"I believe that you are saying you are committed to following the restraining order as it was originally written, and I will honor that commitment."

"It states that "Respondent to choose supervisor to be approved by petitioner in good faith"."

"Once you send me the contact information of a supervisor to approve, I will be able to schedule your time with the kids."

I know that when she reads this she will accuse me of backing off on my willingness to go to unsupervised.  I am tempted to preempt that argument by adding a line that states she should let me know when she is ready to make modifications to the RO.  I'm fairly certain that your collective advice is to not add that line... but I don't really understand why I shouldn't.  I did let her know that I planned to do it, and it does sound to me like I'm backing off from that position.  Which I sort of am, but it is based on her message that she likely doesn't even remember sending.  In my head it's one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" situations.

The other response I will get is that "you know I can't afford a supervisor, and that I don't have anyone that can do it".  She also knows that I don't have anyone that can supervise outside of friends and family she has already said she doesn't want, and I have never said I was unwilling to pay for a supervisor.  I have repeatedly told her that I'm willing to help, but I need her to ask... because I can't read her mind and I don't know what she wants.  It's like I literally have to guess and ask her "do you want this".  Over, and over, and over.  I don't feel I should help her on this issue.  I've repeatedly made it clear what she needs to do and it's her responsibility completely.

[formflier]

Less words is better.

If you haven't sent it yet, consider

just sending the part about her choosing and you approving.

Less is more.  Give her time to process.

Best,

FF

[kells76]

Less words is better.

If you haven't sent it yet, consider

just sending the part about her choosing and you approving.

I'm leaning that way, too.

[Ventak]

I'm leaning that way, too.

I suspected that would be the advice ;)

Interestingly, the delay was effective.  She seems to have come down from her meltdown.  I received this:

"Good Morning xxx, I would really appreciate your help brainstorming ideas on facilitating visitation.  Waiting to hear from each other won't benefit the twins and I feel there has been great progress in both their behavior and language.  Also, I miss them."

My response was that I didn't understand why she had decided to change what we agreed to last week which still makes sense to me, and that is why I need her to take the lead.

From there we had a fairly adult level conversation.  She ended it on a low though... blaming her sister for stopping the niece from supervising visits and "warning" me that her sister is intent on breaking us up.

Thank you all for the help.  I learned a lot... especially about myself and how very difficult it is for me to not solve her problems for her.  I suspect recognition is the first step towards "recovery".

[formflier]

I am resistant to the idea she is "doing better".

I didn't see anything in that message that was "about her"...as if the purpose of the visitation is to "improve the twins".

When you are in that much denial..especially after having bee on a rant (or whatever she was doing)..not good.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it..curious what others thing.

For now my advice still stands.  Let her brainstorm...you approve.  She has a full medical team behind her...stay in your lane.

Best,

FF

[Ventak]

I am resistant to the idea she is "doing better".

I didn't see anything in that message that was "about her"...as if the purpose of the visitation is to "improve the twins".

When you are in that much denial..especially after having bee on a rant (or whatever she was doing)..not good.

I agree that you are not reading too much into it, unless we both did.  Kells said something in another thread about how you have to experience a relationship with pwBPD to understand the undertones of what many would read and think it was an innocuous message.

To me, she was scolding me for not jumping right in and saving her when she said "waiting to hear from each other won't benefit the twins", which I read as "why didn't you jump in and solve my problems for me when I told you to".

The statement about how much progress they make in their visitations is somewhat self aggrandizing.  She appears to think that the 6 hours per week she's been spending with them has been critical to their development... as opposed to the 162 hours they are with me.  She does do different activities with them, which is great and definitely beneficial, but...

On the other hand, I don't think in ten years she has ever reached out and opened a dialog about an issue unless it was through rage.  And when she does it in her rage, it is hard to tell if it is a valid concern she has or just her lashing out at the moment.  So, a baby step... on a very long journey which she may or may not take.

I was just proud of myself for not rushing in to save her right away, and putting the responsibility back on her a little (even though I did give her a hint).  A baby step myself on a very long journey that I am trying to begin.