Maybe she really doesn't want a divorce Part 2

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

This is a continuation of a previous thread: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=341758.0

Skip, you have a horrible tactic of twisting information.

You have strongly debated that you can't get 50/50% visitation in a divorce because of either your schedule (that can't change), your mothers personality (that can't be endured), the cost of day care, or the help of an eventual new romantic partner.

1) 4th Dec - Policy change at work making home dealing possible
2) I would endure my mother for max 1 night every couple of weeks but could not endure for an extended period of time i.e. to facilitate 50/50 access.
3) Cost of daycare would be on top of spousal and child support in a new world scenario + aupairs live in, so I would need to have an additionally larger house with more bedrooms... or in the case of nesting there would be an additional cost of the second home (£1500 pcm min) + utilities. My comment regarding Au pair in this context was in response to my W just being my day nanny... if all I wanted was a day nanny and my W didn't exist as an individual and mother, it would be cheaper to get an au pair... that's not a motivation.
4) Board general advice is not to jump into a new relationship... why would I rely on a new relationship to meet the needs of my children whom have just been traumatised by a divorce... and in your own words, what healthy woman goes anywhere near a man until they have been out of a divorce for over a year (advice to RomanticFool).

You keep using words like revenge and now phrases like 'morality battle'. Is this helpful?

[Enabler]

This is a continuation of a previous thread: https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=341758.0

Skip, you have a horrible tactic of twisting information.

You have strongly debated that you can't get 50/50% visitation in a divorce because of either your schedule (that can't change), your mothers personality (that can't be endured), the cost of day care, or the help of an eventual new romantic partner.

1) 4th Dec - Policy change at work making home dealing possible
2) I would endure my mother for max 1 night every couple of weeks but could not endure for an extended period of time i.e. to facilitate 50/50 access.
3) Cost of daycare would be on top of spousal and child support in a new world scenario + aupairs live in, so I would need to have an additionally larger house with more bedrooms... or in the case of nesting there would be an additional cost of the second home (£1500 pcm min) + utilities. My comment regarding Au pair in this context was in response to my W just being my day nanny... if all I wanted was a day nanny and my W didn't exist as an individual and mother, it would be cheaper to get an au pair... that's not a motivation.
4) Board general advice is not to jump into a new relationship... why would I rely on a new relationship to meet the needs of my children whom have just been traumatised by a divorce... and in your own words, what healthy woman goes anywhere near a man until they have been out of a divorce for over a year (advice to RomanticFool).

You keep using words like revenge and now phrases like 'morality battle'. Is this helpful?

[Skip]

Enabler, serious responses only, please.

You could set up a system to facilitate 50%/50% and evolve/improve it over time using various resources. And your child support payments drop significantly or go away in a 50%/50% model (not so in a 51/49%). Yes, you need to live in the same school district. Talk to a lawyer.

You don't have to stay in a toxic home to have 50% access. You can say you prefer it - but it's not the forced on you by any means.

You keep using words like revenge and now phrases like 'morality battle'. Is this helpful?

Would I be at all interested in correcting her morality if we weren't married and my kids weren't interacting with her? Doubtful.

You can't force which choice she makes, but you can force a choice.

1.  Repent.
2.  Leave the cage [home].

The cannot be a move back into the cage without ‘repentance’

You have used the word "morality" in 70 of your recent posts.

Morality battle.  Yes.

[formflier]

Morality battle.  

I agree morality battle.

I'll also come right out and say it's an appropriate morality battle to have.  

I'll also make a judgment that it's a morality battle (attempt to correct your wife's morality) that has been "poorly fought" for as long as I've been aware of Enabler's story.  (see discussion about what would Dobson recommend).

I'm not aware of any way to "fight" this battle that is easy or without possible/likely consequence to you and your family.  

There is no way to know exactly how the battle will play out.  I can't remember one time that my "pre fight plan" survived first contact (them shooting back) with enemy.  Yet your principles and training remain and you do your best.

Best,

FF

[Skip]

Men, I'm reading the plotting here ( https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=341779 )...  

I'd really advise you not to get cute.

Taking such an action will kick this into the "high conflict" stratosphere. A decent lawyer will paint you as a religious zealot and the two of you (E and EW) as incapable of being co-parents. They will defer to the mother in that case and you will never see 50% visitation... you probably won't get 50% custody.

Everyone will be miserable afterward.

The basic argument against 50% is instability. If the parents appear stable and cooperative, there is a good chance. You wife wants 150 nights a year to play... the ingredients are there.

My advice is to get a good lawyer, tell him you want to get positioned to be able to check all the formula boxes to make a run at being a 50% parent, layout a plan, work it. Create as few waves as possible. Accept your wife for who she is.

You're a good dad (for sure), you have spend 50% + in raising them. The court will look favorably at that.

Make the kids the priority. Not the morality battle. Stop trying to change her thoughts.

Your marriage is in the church, but your divorce will be in family court.

P.S. FF, have you been in family court?

[Notwendy]

Taking this to a morality battle is, IMHO derailing the discussion. It then becomes an intellectual discussion with Bible quotes and a strategy to be the one who wins. Wife is already in the loser position by committing adultery. Enabler wins this one by being the good husband and father and enduring whatever hardship it takes to keep the marriage together.

We’ve had numerous threads that eventually come down to this.

So why is there even a problem? Enabler is doing exactly what he chooses to do. Wife’s an adulterer. On these terms the “battle “ is already won. The dysfunction continues but if the focus is on the morality battle then what need is there to continue to debate this?

[Cat Familiar]

Through my inaction on following through with divorce when the first attempt to secure a collaborative divorce was unsuccessful, my ex and his then girlfriend hatched a plan to lie and try to extract more assets than legally merited, and found the most aggressive and unscrupulous divorce attorney in town to pursue their aims.

Passivity in participating in the process totally bit me in the butt and I ended up with a contentious divorce on steroids, spending untold time pursuing documents to validate my claims and dispute his lies, and far more money in attorneys fees. Ultimately I had to pay him more money than my property originally cost (which was my inhertitance). The irony was that he stiffed his pit bull attorney for her fees and she attempted to get him to do yard work to pay off his bill— not sure how that worked out. 

[formflier]

I'd really advise you not to get cute.

Taking such an action will kick this into the "high conflict" stratosphere.

This isn't about getting "cute".  It's about not conflating advice for a morality battle with advice for secular resolution of a potential high conflict divorce.

In other places on these boards when we are talking about "Christian discussions" or other faith discussions, we are able to lay out those "arguments" without them being labeled "cute" or other terms which might be taken by some as disparaging (although I would be shocked if the intention of using "cute" was to disparage in this post).

If we are going to define the terms of a morality battle, we should do so faithfully in accordance with what the author's say and their clear intent.  (Dobson and Bible)

That's the source of the "morality battle".

Skip, I have been in family court and related systems (though not for divorce).

I have a public "moral stand" in the church and community similar to this situation (wife wanted to keep details dark and I turned on my light).  Yes conflict went up initially, things got worse before they got better, but a choice was forced with several outside eyes watching.  It wasn't fun but I believe it was worth it.  

In Enablers case it very well may kick things into a higher gear.  I'll accept that it is likely (but we don't know).  

Listen guys.  Going forward I would suggest that posts about morality battles and morality be allowed to play themselves out without being labeled as anything other than what they are.

Same for secular advice.

Enabler will choose and I think he should choose one or the other.

Taking a few plays from the secular book and a few plays from the morality book have gotten Enabler where he is today...stuck.

I think he should pick a way forward and do it.  Either drop the morality play all together or drop the "secular stuff" and let the morality play itself out.

Best,

FF

[formflier]

So why is there even a problem? 

From the Biblical point of view Enabler is focusing on things other than "forcing a choice" on the marriage.  I'm not saying that focusing on being a good father is  bad or should be stopped.

From a Biblical point of view (and I believe Dobsons) Enabler's silence is a problem.  Leviticus 5 (and I would argue many other places, although I'd have to study a bit to recall the others)

Generally speaking, there are many stories/examples of people being told they are "bad" in the Bible for "looking the other way".  People that speak up and take appropriate action are generally praised.

Best,

FF

[Cat Familiar]

I can’t speak for Skip, but what I’m getting out of his comment is that Enabler is in an extremely vulnerable legal position and anything that would ramp up the conflict between him and the Mrs. is inadvisable.

Regarding the infidelity issues and the morality the church teaches, the time to have confronted that is long gone—that ship has sailed and Enabler has helped to load the luggage onboard.

[Harri]

Listen guys.  Going forward I would suggest that posts about morality battles and morality be allowed to play themselves out

The morality battle posts were immediately split out and given a [Christian] discussion (protection) label as per:

1.11 Respecting Religious Belief Systems: We are a multi-national and multi-cultural community and narrow faith based discussions are allowed. By narrow, we mean that when a thread host raises a question with religious implications they are entitled to a discussion that stays within the confines of the teachings of their specific religion or denomination (e.g., Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc. ) for their specific topic.

For example if a Jewish host is exploring "why does God allows mental defect", then participants need to stick to Jewish philosophies, practices, and interpretations. Discussions about Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology or agnostic beliefs are not intended to be part of this exploration. We ask members to add "[Discussion of Christian Beliefs]" or "[Discussion of Buddhist Beliefs]" to their threads subject line to help guide other participants.

If someone wants to have a specific cross faith discussion (e.g., Catholic vs Protestant beliefs), then they will need to specify the specific faiths.

We very much encourage members to explore how well they are living their faith and how their relationship with someone with BPD affects their faith. At the same time, we ask members not to use faith to judge, criticize or condemn others. There is increasing recognition by leading experts of the benefits of mental and emotional therapies which blend ancient faith based practices (Western and Eastern) with more contemporary clinical practices.

Proselytizing, secularizing, debating across or within belief systems, or diminishing the religious beliefs of others or judging others is neither constructive nor respectful and is a serious breach of the discussion format.
https://bpdfamily.com/guidelines#religion

[formflier]

Me neither but I think my ultimate desire is to be effective. 

Really depends on how you define effective.

If "effective" means forcing a choice, you can do that.

You can't force which choice or the choice you want.  (which is what I'm guessing you mean by effective)

Best,

FF

[formflier]

I can’t speak for Skip, but what I’m getting out of his comment is that Enabler is in an extremely vulnerable legal position and anything that would ramp up the conflict between him and the Mrs. is inadvisable.

Regarding the infidelity issues and the morality the church teaches, the time to have confronted that is long gone—that ship has sailed and Enabler has helped to load the luggage onboard.

From a certain point of view this is likely correct.

I would also agree that Enabler would likely be better off to have done this earlier, but I'm not aware of anytime being "too late"

Best,

FF

[formflier]

The morality battle posts were immediately split out and given a [Christian] discussion (protection) label as per:

I agree and then they were commented on/referred to in this thread.

Men, I'm reading the plotting here ( https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=341779 )...  

I'd really advise you not to get cute.
 

Perhaps I'm mistaken about what "cute" refers to.  Anyone want to clarify?

Best,

FF

[Skip]

...although I would be shocked if the intention of using "cute" was to disparage in this post...

Thank you. Correct.
Cute = mentally keen; clever; shrewd (Dictionary.com).
The family court operates at a very unsophisticated level. Formulas. Checklists.

Taking a few plays from the secular book and a few plays from the morality book have gotten Enabler where he is today...stuck.

I think there is general agreement with this.  Cat Familiar's suggestion that the horse are already out of the barn is worth consideration.

(1) Going forward I would suggest that posts about morality battles and morality be allowed to play themselves out without being labeled as anything other than what they are. (2) Same for secular advice.

Just a small point. While we carve out and protect certain faith threads, it does not relegate all other threads as "secular". Secular means denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. I know lot of the advice given has had religious or spiritual basis and a lot of the posters have strong religious or spiritual beliefs.

Let's go back to the subject at hand.

[Cat Familiar]

As I see it, there’s a debate here about confronting behavior that deviates from proscribed morality as defined by the church versus following a path that is likely to yield best results regarding custody in a legal battle.

Which is preferable? To achieve a moral victory and possibly lose favorable custody aims? Or to have a less-contested legal battle and have more access to the kids?

[formflier]

Here's my attempt to "center" this thread.

I find it interesting when I "see" agreement in two very different (family law vs Dobson) points of view from which advice comes.

Time is NOT THE FRIEND OF ENABLER (perhaps one caveat at the bottom)

1.  I 100% agree that from the family law point of view, the sooner the settlement is reached, the better for all parties.  (and I'm not aware of any disagreement on this, see Skips insurance company example...settle fast..it's human nature) 2.  I also 100% agree that the sooner the Biblical model (confronting) happens the better, because the longer people become entrenched...the harder to repent/reconcile. Caveat:  Should Enabler want to maintain status quo "marriage of convenience" then time doesn't seem to matter.  (not much thought given to this but it feels like the right answer)

I'm not saying he should "rush" into one thing or another tomorrow.  But should be deliberate about picking a path.

Seriously.  Either drop the morality battle completely or give up on the hiding of the affair.    

I completely get it that either path is NOT easy, but it will get you unstuck.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

I see 3 distinct issues here:

1) My Wife's morality with regards to acting on a pastoral team yet acting against pastoral advice in secret, acting immorally (Religious).

2) My willingness and execution of pushing my wife out of 'the cage'

3) My handling of the divorce process, notably pushing my version of a deal quickly

Firstly I think it's important to note what my position is on morality. I don't like immorality when it impacts me, but I accept that it happens and I am not foolish enough to suggest that I am not without significant immorality myself. There is acceptable immorality in society and people have varying degrees of what they believe is acceptable and unacceptable. Some people's threshold for immorality is vastly different from that taught by the church. So, for the avoidance of more Christian vs secular discussion I think it's important to note that the threshold for immorality in a relationship, the boundary lets say, is defined by the 2 people in a relationship. My wife has defined what is immoral and not immoral in our relationship. I have a higher threshold to what constitutes immorality than she does. So, when discussing morality in this context, I'm measuring her to her own yardstick that she herself defined in the rest of our relationship. I am in essence expecting her to have a consistent definition of morality which we BOTH adhere to. I am not proclaiming to be more moral than her, rather I am claiming that I have adhered to her definition, and she has not. The problem, is that she seems to not want to recognise that she has not only not adhered to that standard in the last 4 years, but also not adhered to it in the previous 19yrs of our relationship, and, has defined me as immoral.   

1) My Wife's morality with regards to acting on a pastoral team yet acting against pastoral advice in secret, acting immorally (Religious). - The Church has set it's own threshold for immorality and there is an expectation that it's leaders adhere to that standard, not least to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the Church (group of people, not building). My wife is claiming and being perceived by the church that she is adhering to that standard when I have a significant body of evidence to strongly suggest that she is not. She is unlikely to disclose even when confronted that she is not adhering to that standard. It is probable that her and OM have and will attempt to manipulate 'the Church' such that they will appear too maintain the standard now and through a transition period emerging as a moral couple. My W is teaching the churches definition of morality to inmates at a local womens prison and children in schools yet significantly and knowingly deviating from the standard in her non-Christian life.

Do I have a duty as part of 'the Church' to notify the church to preserve it's integrity. I have done this informally to senior clergy although not directly to her own church formally. When I had these informal conversations it wasn't intended to get back to my W's church so action could be taken, it was intended to get moral guidance and spiritual support/prayer, but subconsciously I am sure I hoped a quiet word would have been had, thus I would not be directly involved in bursting my W and OM's bubble. To my knowledge this word has not happened.

I am not brave enough to risk going nuclear. The probability of this severely impacting things I regard as important (relationship with kids, long term relationship/co-parenting with W, financial security) is VERY high. Also, although I believe my W lcks integrity with regards to how she lives her life away from the Church work, I believe she is excellent at what she does in her church work. An example of this would be her work in prisons. I think she has a natural affinity to care and connect with prisoners and offer pastoral care to very very vulnerable people. I believe her natural affinity stems directly from her experiences with BPD, not least having an understanding of anger, impulsivity, emotional engulfment which are often the cause of inmates being imprisoned. Self harm and suicide (ideation and actual) are also highly prevalent in prisons which she has intimate experience of. My wife also has a long standing sense of being imprisoned, by her parents, by me, by the kids, she connects to that feeling of captivity. I can't deny that she is doing very good, meaningful work.

2) My willingness and execution of pushing my wife out of 'the cage' - we've been looking at Dobson's book and in my mind we've muddied the water between point 1 above and this point. Dobson's book is not strictly written for Christians, he is a Christian and the book is very focused on faith based relationships, that said, to my knowledge his advice does not strictly advocate hauling your W in front of the church to push her out the cage door. Also if my memory serves me well

If I had to summarise what I have done so far, I would say that I have opened the cage door, I have told her it is opened, and stood behind her in the cage. As she moves towards the cage door I have moved towards her stopping her from regressing back into the cage... the cage has in effect got smaller. I have not pushed her out the cage though. The result has been that she (at times) has been more and more angry about the cage. She has looked out the cage door seen the drop and tried to come back in (without conversations), but has bumped back into the wall I've moved closer. Parts of the outside world (OM) have become more and more alluring. I've performed poorly at making the cage uncomfortable (for reasons I will get to in a minute) removing some of the things that have long since held her in limbo. She has experienced some consequences of her choices but not nearly enough (e.g. going back to work, clearing up some of her mess, more financial restraint) and not nearly with enough consistency.

Why have I not removed her creature comforts? Dobsons book doesn't to my memory cover examples where your spouse is claiming domestic abuse. I was/am in such a precarious position with regards to her claims that I am a domestic abuser not only to her but the kids that moves such as removing comfort from the cage would inevitably be seen as evidence of her claims. Friends and family I can ignore, the police would be another matter (not least because it would put my job at risk, even an investigation). Whether the reality would be explainable or not. As others have mentioned the time for a big bang intervention has long gone and the narrative is far far far too complex now with embedded land mines. There was a time in 2016 when this was utterly the way forward, and I can specifically remember 2 events where this would have been the optimal time, a lot has happened since.

3) My handling of the divorce process, notably pushing my version of a deal quickly - I wary of the game theory here, it's not that I am saying it's incorrect, in the insurance context it's clearly correct. My reservations are as follows:
- Cultural differences between UK and US. B (I mentioned before) was married to a Brit in 2005. They were burgled in the middle of the night which freaked her out, he goes on a business jolly to the Florida quays 2 weeks later, he comes back to an empty house and a text message saying she'd left him with their 6m old kid. His reaction was "strike whilst the iron is hot" and in his true litigious style (father is a lawyer) he roared in there with formal legal letters and divorce proceedings. It was literally a petrol tanker to a bonfire. 4 years later and $250k on barristers he was still fighting his W to get her to adhere to the parenting order. He didn't grasp that a lawyers letter is MASSIVELY inflammatory, especially to a aggrieved Essex girl who took that to be him being controlling and throwing his weight around. I have spoken to at least 2 work associates who had similar reactions when they went for a quick settlement and aggressed only to find that kids/house/money were all weaponised after they didn't like the outcome they felt like they were bullied into... fair or otherwise.
- She wants this (admittedly she wanted this a lot more a few years ago) and I don't believe that she would be foolish enough to go to court to achieve 'this'. Which likely means she's likely to be prepared to trade at mids rather than me putting an attractive offer on the table.
- She wants to appear reasonable, and I don't see that going away. She has already eluded to having low expectations.
- She is demonstrating emotions of fear more than anger. Angry people want revenge, she wants rescuing.

I don't see a clear case for first mover advantage here. In the insurance cases there is a natural disconnect between the insurance company and the client post settlement. A client can make an unadvised mistake in settling based on poor information at the road side, the insurance company's obligations are then nul... yes the client might not renew their policy but it's of little concern to the insurance company as long as the claim goes away. In a marital split where there is recourse not only financially but through child relationships, the angry client (my W) can later unleash hell fire on the insurance company (me) if they do not fully own the settlement. Now don't get me wrong, I know that my W will cognitively manipulate ANY settlement such that she will not own it... but she'll find no physical evidence other than her own proposals, or some sort of mediated collaboration to cast as fact that she was bamboozled into a deal by me. As yet NO proposals have been tabled so it's hard to say that mediation hasn't worked since no lines have been drawn. I think it's important to have an understanding of how the levers (capital and income) change the picture and what is tolerable and intolerable but to slide something over the table saying "here it is" feels like a recipe for disaster.

Enabler     

[formflier]

So if there is not (or a very weak mechanism) in British law for enforcing a parenting order, what is the purpose of having one.

Is this case, we would advise Enabler to save his money and hope for the best.

If a lawyer letter is inflammatory in Briton, how do lawyers communicate their desires to another party?

Scratching my head a bit here...

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

So if there is not (or a very weak mechanism) in British law for enforcing a parenting order, what is the purpose of having one.

From what I have seen (and read on here) if a spouse wants to weaponise the kids, they will find a way. Either by restricting communication, being passive aggressive with regards to agreed visitation or feigning sickness. In the case of B, in the last court hearing (his son was 8 by this point... expensive barristers) the judge informed B's ex W (via her Barrister) that if she did not adhere to the courts ruling (previously she had not) "that B could have a 2 week vacation taking his son back to the US", she would be held in contempt of court and potentially imprisoned. He battled endlessly to gain/change access entitlement and even to get his son on the weekends it was agreed. His son was often far far far too sick to travel...

I could save my money yes, and the child order agreement can't guarantee that my W won't waste years of our lives using the kids against me. The 3 other examples never considered parental alienation as a potential outcome so didn't bother with child orders because they didn't think they'll need them... doh!

If a lawyer letter is inflammatory in Briton, how do lawyers communicate their desires to another party?

Lawyers  = formal = inflammatory

People would expect you to 'speak' about it directly first.

Another thing B didn't get was that him and his exW would have informal discussions agreeing 'things', the next morning a 'signed for' mail would arrive which would be a transcript of the informal agreement which she had to sign and return. He didn't get that to an 'Essex girl' that was an enormous F U. His actions made sense, they were prudent and sensible, but the outcome was that the informal agreement never stood as he started a new fire.

[formflier]

The child order isn't about controlling passive aggressiveness, it's about creating something for the court to enforce

So, was she imprisoned or did she follow the order?

As you can see, it's important to have a well written order, especially regarding "automatic consequences".

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

The child order isn't about controlling passive aggressiveness, it's about creating something for the court to enforce

So, was she imprisoned or did she follow the order?

As you can see, it's important to have a well written order, especially regarding "automatic consequences".

She followed the order of the judge, but I he spent more money than I have to get her to that point.

I'm not sure that Child Orders stipulate automatic consequences, and they certainly can't stipulate imprisonment. In much the same way that they can't stipulate where my W lives. "I'm moving to Scotland... soz"

[formflier]

I'm not sure that Child Orders stipulate automatic consequences, and they certainly can't stipulate imprisonment. In much the same way that they can't stipulate where my W lives. "I'm moving to Scotland... soz"

Perhaps this is ignorance on my part.

How can an order NOT stipulate the location of a child or at least set rules for it.

I get it that on "her" parenting time, she can likely be in Antarctica and be "legal", but then you would think the child must be placed in custody of the other parent.

Enabler

It seems obvious to me there is much you need to ask and learn from a lawyer (barrister or whatever) in your jurisdiction.  I would also implore you to focus on how the law generally works and resist making decisions based on anecdotal stories or examples.

Don't catastrophize (new FF word) what hasn't happened yet.  I would specifically ask how you might word the order to minimize chances of your anecdotal examples coming true (that is wise)

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

The wording of the child order cannot restrict the liberty of either of the custodial parents. Therefore the child order cannot stipulate where the child lives (other than 'reasonable distance'), this was from the legal mediator. The child order can stipulate things like "Father will pick up the kids at 19:00 on a Friday evening, Mother will pick up the kids at 19:00 on Sunday evening" which essentially means the inconvenience of any move hours away is shared. I was a bit melodramatic with the moving to Scotland example... if she was to move to Scotland she would have to apply for relocation https://www.tmfamilylaw.co.uk/relocation-of-a-parent/  .

How enforceable these things are often comes down to how much money you are willing to sink into the big black hole of lawyers...

BUT... The point is this is a situation that is far better avoided, because no one really wins. 

[Skip]

I see 3 distinct issues here:

1) My Wife's morality with regards to acting on a pastoral team yet acting against pastoral advice in secret, acting immorally (Religious).

2) My willingness and execution of pushing my wife out of 'the cage'

3) My handling of the divorce process, notably pushing my version of a deal quickly

This seems like where we started 500 posts ago, Enabler.    The hope is that fear can scare her into staying in the marital home; even though the marriage has been dead for years, she is 4 years into another relationship, and she has built a new identity tied to it. The target fears are exposure/shame as an immoral person before her children, social circle, employer; financial uncertainties; and the increased child care obligations of single motherhood. Your tactics have been to passive-aggressively fan these fears - especially the first one.

You can stay the course. If her dreams fail, will she fall back in love with you? Anything is possible; but the odds are extremely low as you say.

What appears to be happening instead is that she and her affair partner/lover have adjusted their plans (intentionally or unintentionally) and are meditating their exposure and leveraging your resources (e.g., time, money) by pacing the divorce. Why rush? Her boyfriend has not yet divorced. The near-term benefit of being in the divorce process is clear - it legitimizes her social life, the time away from her children, and the time she spends with her boyfriend.

I think the main point made in the discussions with you here has been for you to accept the the marriage is over and shift the focus to making a better life for the children and yourself - who are now living in a toxic environment that will mark everyone for life. You heard from members who have seen it and/or lived it and who were marked for life. Children learn what family is from their parents.

The impact that this prolonged relationship breakdown has had on you is evident. The drip-drip-drip erosion of the your family has crept up on you - to cope you have normalized it. This is not your fault - any of us could have slide slowly into this type of morass - fallen into the same "learned helplessness". You are "M" in your own life story. Your posts in this thread about the impossibility of shared parenting, or the impossibility of finding and effective collaborative lawyer, or of an impending doom of PAS if you stand up for yourself are all signs of learned helplessness and hope for a reconciliation. Being in a loveless marriage for years will do this to a man.

This is why 29 members have jumped into this to help. They see the toxicity growing. Almost all of the 29 were in some version of what you are living, made their way out, and are passing their hard learned lessons on to you.

Of all the divorce situations I've seen on this board in my 12 years here, you have by far the greatest opportunity to have a reasonably amicable one because your wife has already grieved the marriage and is on a new life path that doesn't center around her children. She welcomes your childcare - her new life depends on it. You have the financial means to support both of you in starting over. Your dedication to child care is far above the norm - the courts will look favorably at this.

Moving on from "issue immersion" to real solutions was a big part of this discussion. You have been encourage to either:

1. Seek an exit to the marriage while your wife is amicable and before she gets advisors who make this harder to settle, take a more proactive role in setting up 50/50% custody arrangement, stop enabling and normalizing the current toxic environment. Facilitate (you have the skills, she doesn't). Don't antagonize (e.g., her, the affair partner, the church). 2. Declare your marriage a "marriage of convenience" and be upfront setting rules that move your home from a toxic situation, to one of peace and cooperation. Separate your finances, create schedules and responsibilities, and find respect in a shared purpose of raising the kids. This means no more morality warfare, no more "abuse" smear campaigns, develop working relationships with all the players, and above all - ending the doormat nanny. Facilitate (you have the skills, she doesn't). Don't antagonize (e.g., her, the affair partner, the church). 3. Instigate a church intervention. This was discussed and it was concluded that the window of opportunity is past - this approach would be highly inflammatory for a number of reasons, not the least of which is her new identity and employment are tied up in her image in the church. Destroy this and she has nothing to lose and will be dangerous. Besides, it is hard to imagine a church engaging in this without her consent or because she is an employee, or encouraging reconciliation when domestic abuse claims are on the table. They don't want to be on the evening news if something goes wrong.

Maintaining the status quo has a payout; that's why you both allow it. We've talked a lot about her reasons, but not a lot about the yours. The love that is absent in your marriage flows in abundance from those little girls as you sit alone telling them wonderful stories about unicorns. They love you, mom, puppy's, pancakes, everything. They are happy and expressive. You are their world. This is immensely restorative to your sanity - your wife's too - but it is not healthy for theirs (to be in a toxic home).

I have learned a lot in this discussion and I have received PMs from others (as I'm sure others have) that this discussion was helpful to many. Whatever side anyone comes down on, it has been an opportunity for us all to think. Thanks to those who have participated so far - it's been a great swell of support.

Enabler formflier Skip Notwendy Cat Familiar sweetheart FaithHopeLoveKC babyducks Gagrl I Am Redeemed kells76 Fian worriedStepmom empath Gemsforeyes livednlearned Panda39 AskingWhy Longterm ForeverDad Harri Ltahoe mart555 ct21218 once removed Red5 Rev Stillhopeful4 Turkish

169 87 70 46 27 19 12 10 10 7 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

[formflier]

I agree that Skip has summarized the majority opinion/conclusion.
 
Perhaps I should write up a "dissenting opinion" (Supreme Court type thing) regarding the language and assumptions used for number 3.  

Out of time at the moment.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

Skip, are you being facetious? I can no longer tell.

[Cat Familiar]

Since children model their parents’ behavior, which one of you do you want your daughters to copy?

Daddy Dormat?

Adulterous Mommy?

This is the model of “marriage” that they’re experiencing. How on earth are they to ever know what a healthy relationship is if they don’t see it demonstrated?

[ct21218]

There's an old saying - do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?  You seem so hellbent on exposing your wife's behavior.  I agree that what she has done isn't morally the right thing.  In the end it doesn't really matter what got you in this situation.  You have the choice the be the bigger person and to put your kids in a healthier situation and to be happy. I think you have been stuck for so long that you don't see how sick this is.

[Longterm]

  You have the choice the be the bigger person and to put your kids in a healthier situation and to be happy.

This.

Nobody is going to win, everybody to some degree will lose. You could cut your losses here, accept the marriage is dead and find an amicable solution to the predicament. You are upset (rightly) but I feel as though this is all just going around in circles.

I also believe in the union of marriage, I think it is a truly special thing IF both spouses are committed. Your W has been having an extramarital affair for 4 years, there is no shame in divorce here, morally speaking it is maybe the right way to go here because your wifes actions are not in line with your beliefs. I often feel reading your posts that you and your W are simply not compatible.

I understand your worries and concerns regarding the children but by setting up a parenting plan and officially dissolving the family, you could become an even better parent than you already are. You could provide a stable environment for the girls that is much healthier than the current circumstances, you could be free of this toxicity in your life.

Revenge will get you nowhere, maybe the best thing would be to not seek it, it doesn't matter who's right, what matters is the bigger picture, that being the future for your kids and demonstrating healthier dynamics.

LT.

[Enabler]

I wrote a big old load of JADE and deleted it.

Please read my post above summarising my 3 points. Please specifically read the final paragraphs of MY 3 points, not Skips interpretation, MINE. There’s reoccurring talk of anger and revenge and other stuff that just aren’t what I’m feeling and not my intentions.

Just because I have not chosen the inevitability of one outcome does not mean I am stuck. Amicable solutions may well happen due to the things that are progressing in mediation for example. Amicable solutions might happen by not thrusting deals on the table or leading the show or controlling or enabling... amicable solutions might occur by managing the ball down the hill, no drama, no confrontation, no pushing, no anger, no revenge, by allowing my W to stumble over things, to find her way through.

Saturday we’re going for a family trip to London to see the lights and go for dinner, hopefully that should be nice. I left it open for her to come or not come, she’s chosen to come. Hopefully she won’t be rude like she was at points last year, but you know what, I’ll keep building those bridges. Me and the kids will have fun regardless.

[Harri]

This thread reached the post limit and has been locked. 

Thank you.