BPDFamily.com

So we want to make an emergency motion to stop my husband from having unsupervised visitation until he's back on his meds and his docs think it's ok.  Was supposed to talk to my lawyer today but she didn't get back to me yet.  Anyway, before charging into court, we could talk to his lawyers and try to deal with this situation.  However, if they don't agree, and we then have to do an ex parte motion, could he now be tipped off and show up to contest it, thus making it a lot harder to do it?  Usually they have no warning of it.

If in your state they get no warning I wouldn't tip my hand. What is his L going to do? Convince his unmedicated client to be reasonable and agree to your terms? He can't make deals unless his client will agree to them. So even if he wants to help as I see it his hands are pretty much tied. Also, any assurances you get from the other side aren't enforceable the way a court order is. So you'd run the risk of wasting time and money now and having to go and do this later anyway.

I agree with Nope.  Usually I think it's a good idea to try to enlist the other party's attorney - if the other party has a psychological disorder and the attorney seems like a helpful person - to maybe find a solution to some problems without court.

But in this case it sounds like ex parte might be best.  You can't expect his lawyer to agree to something like that without consulting his client, and if you wouldn't believe it if your husband promised to change now anyway, the legal path may be the best one.

You can still be moderate in how you approach the issue, and leave open the possibility of unsupervised visitation in the future.  Just make sure to make it very clear why you are asking for what you're asking for, what your concerns are for the child, and why you believe the issue can't be resolved without a court order.

Hmmm.  OK.  Still haven't had a chance to talk with my lawyer about this.  She put me off til tomorrow.  Apparently I'm hearing that judges hate it when you come to them for an emergency when it's not really an emergency.  But I guess once I talk to her I'll understand better what we need to do.

It is really confusing.

The thing that makes me sad is that they will consider this a sneak attack and then hopes of normal communication will be dashed for a while.  Not that communication with BPD x is normal anyway, but sometimes it is.   

What would you tell the judge?

That our PC said that exH's psychiatrist said he's off his medication and could be a danger and that he should be getting back on his medication.  In the meantime, our PC has recommended suspending unsupervised parenting time pending his becoming stable.  He is due to have parenting time this weekend and we wanted it to be supervised for the time being.

(Deep inside, I don't think the medication solves anything.  I guess I am just at a point where I have to trust the experts.   I have been scared of court so long that maybe I feel like I have to stop avoiding it.  I don't know.) 

I don't even necessarily have proof that my exH's doc said that, only the PC's word.  She definitely thinks my exH is nutz.  I guess my case would hinge on a recommendation from the PC, as long as she will give one.

Can the PC be at the ex parts hearing?

Would she give you an affidavit?

Or even an e-mail from the PC saying what she said about the meds

The risk is if the judge sees it as third-hand information... .

Therapists and counselors often are reluctant to get involved with family court, but I see no reason why a PC wouldn't step forward.  The PC would be a credible professional who could voice the other professionals' concerns.  Generally what the PC or GAL wants, they get.

Good to know.

I have trouble faking things.  I would have trouble saying that it's an emergency, because I actually don't believe he's much worse than usual off his meds -- but I think he's generally angry or happy based on whether he thinks we may get back together some day, or if something triggers him with the kids.  I am always afraid when he has the kids.  Not sure if it's unfounded. That said, since I never know what to do and have no yardstick, I'm just going by the professionals.

I've been getting myself sick over this.  I hate going to court.  I hate talking to my lawyer.  I thought all this stuff would have calmed down by now.  I still hope for that day. 

Here's a parallel (kinda) from my own case... .maybe a lesson in here somewhere... .

At first I was in denial, and didn't hire a lawyer - agreed to give her primary custody - tried to reconcile - went to marriage counseling with a guy my wife found.  That didn't work, but she found another counselor, and I agreed to try it again, and this one was better.

We met with her once, and she asked a lot of very good questions.  Then she met with me alone, and told me she believed my wife had BPD.  She read me the criteria from the DSM and told me which of them she believed my wife met.  But she couldn't formally diagnose her.

Later it became clear that we couldn't make the marriage work, so I hired a lawyer and told him to move ahead with the divorce.  But I had foolishly agreed to give my wife primary custody.  So we filed a motion to have the court appoint a Custody Evaluator, and in that motion told what the counselor had told me - that my wife met most of the criteria for BPD.  We said that this was new information, so .what I had agreed to before wasn't valid any more.  The judge agreed with that and appointed the CE.

But there was no formal diagnosis yet.  The marriage counselor had not administered objective tests (like the MMPI-2), and she wasn't qualified to diagnose anyway.  But the judge ruled that there was new information - a professional stating an opinion, which was verified by both lawyers calling the counselor and asking her if she said what I said she did - and the court's ruling wasn't that my wife actually had BPD, or anything else, only that a professional would be appointed and both of us would be tested.

So... .for you, at the ex parte, it might be enough to say that you have reason to be concerned - what the PC said to you and what you know of your husband's behavior in the past.  You're not asking for him to be put on supervised visitation permanently, and you're not accusing him of anything;  you're not even stating as a fact that he's off his meds.  (Be careful not to say anything you don't know for sure!)  You're only saying what you know:  that the PC told you he's off his meds, and that the PC recommends supervision, and that in the past you have seen his behavior when he's off his meds and it is causing you concern.

You can say, "I'm very concerned for Child's safety."

You don't have to say, "He's off his meds and if he isn't supervised something horrible will happen!".

You're being overly precise on yourself.  You don't say, "He needs to be on his meds if he is to see our child but he's really not that bad, I just get worried."  No way!  First rule of lawyers is to say as little as possible.  If you can answer with a simple Yes or No, that say the one word and STOP.  Don't try to address every theoretical permutation.  Don't get lost - or get the court lost - in the details.  While you feel impelled to use the quote above, shorten it to just the essentials, for example, "He needs to be on his meds if he is to see our child."  Period.  Got it?  Don't fret over giving a 20 minute dissertation.  Courts want the bare bones and not stuff that may or may not apply.  Keep it simple, follow the lead of the professionals and don't guilt yourself about it.

Yeah, I'm not gonna say anything mealy-mouthed.  Thanks for the great advice.  I just feel really bad because I never know if I'm doing the right thing.  Part of me has always wanted to get a custody eval to make sure the kids are safe with him (not that they could necessarily tell).  So this isn't really that, and it's not really anything other than spending money in court to get him to take his meds... .which he's only started taking in the past year.  I do notice it's easier to deal with him when he's on them, but not always.  I just suffer from knowing that these professionals don't know any more than I do.  They go back to their usual diagnoses, schizophrenia or bipolar, and don't really know the extent of his mood swings.

I tried to ask our PC what the fear is, regarding the kids being with him.  She said she doesn't know, he just shouldn't be with them off his meds.  I wonder if this is really worth doing... .I guess it is, but who knows.

Oh well, will talk to lawyer in the morning and know more.

If you really are concerned and you let the children go this weekend then you are contradicting yourself in the courts view.

I have not followed our court order at times. The last time was during school and our S11 was sick. I was supposed to drop him off at his moms but I put him in bed and sent an email explaining my decision. Ex sent a nasty email back which I didn't reply to. It would have been up to her to file a contempt of court petition and I felt confidant I would not have been found in contempt.

If the pc said he would be a danger then why would you permit the children to go ?

I am not trying to say what you should do. I am trying to present how the courts will view this.

He doesn't have them until next weekend.  No, if he had them this weekend, it would be more emergent to deal with it right now.  I have a few days to deal with it as it stands.  I'm not letting them go... .but I just feel like I'm not waiting for even more to happen, or not waiting until I could go further with this, or something.  You may have a point, that I can just refuse to let them go if I want.  But really, I'd rather deal with it legally.  Ugh, need to talk to my L already.  So tense over all this.  Even when he's back on the meds, it won't solve our problems.

You don't have to decide between "dealing with it legally" and protecting the kids.  You can do both.

For example, if you decide - and taking into account what the PC said - that it is risky for him to have the kids unsupervised if he's off his meds;  and you have reason to believe that he's off his meds;  then you might decide that the safe thing to do is to keep the kids yourself and file an ex parte motion so the judge can decide what is best.  So you do that.

It's not violating the court order if you have some good reason to be concerned.

Another example from my experience - again, not exactly like your case... .

My wife had melted down - become violent and made wild accusations - and the results were bad for everybody - her, the kids, and me.  I decided one way to help the kids was to take them to see an experienced counselor.  But I knew that the "right" thing to do would be to consult with my wife and decide about counseling together.  And I also knew that she wouldn't agree to counseling no matter what I said.

So I talked to the school counselor and she referred me to a counselor in private practice, and I took the kids to see her, weekly at first and then less.  It was helpful.  I didn't tell the kids ":)on't tell your mom!" but I didn't talk to their mom about the counselor.  In court, her lawyer tried to make an issue of it, but I just said I had concerns about the kids and believed it would be best for them to be in counseling, and didn't believe their mom would agree, so I got a referral - I didn't shop for someone to take my side - and took them.  And the court not only agreed, but my wife was ordered to pay part of the cost!  The reason was that - although what I did was technically not "correct" - I did what was best for the kids, and the court was not going to punish me for doing that.

I think it's the same for you:  if you believe - based on good reasons - that it is best for the kids to see their father with supervision until he's back on his meds, then that's the right thing to do.  And ex parte will allow you to take the issue to the court ASAP so the judge can decide longer-term.

yeah, my pc tells me that I tell my exH too much.  She's kind of right... .it just vexes him and causes trouble for me.

Are you talking with him by phone or face-to-face?

Could you use e-mail instead?

Almost all e-mail now.  I'm getting better about boundaries now.  Texting is ok for urgent stuff and scheduling changes. 

He sent me a long email tonight claming he's gonna take the kids to some doctors' appointments they don't need, for 2nd opinions.  He never had that desire before this week.  To the outside world that could look pretty normal.  But it's not.

Make sure you know the doctors' names, and contact them to get the results of these visits.  Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion, but if he starts to spin things different from what the doctor actually wrote - which happens fairly often in situations like this - you have to find out and deal with it.

Yes, already expecting that... .and these aren't things that require second opinions.  It's a waste.  Thanks for your advice!

You've been given a gift, momtara. I think your hesitation and concern about seizing this has to do with your tolerance for mental illness. Two professionals have said they are concerned. Trust that their professional opinion matters here, especially the PC. And make sure the PC agrees to testify! They are part of judicial forensics, so she will probably have been trained in this stuff, similar to a GAL. In my case, something really bad happened and then people paid attention. You don't want to do it that way, it's terrible. N/BPDx's psychotic episode was the worst night of my life, and probably S13's. If I had had the PC before that night, maybe we could've avoided it.

As for the ex parte order, it might be different where you live but the way ex parte works here is that it gets filed with the clerk of court, and then it gets checked for technicalities (like whether it was noticed properly). If the judge/court finds it is bogus, she or he can stop it from going forward. It isn't even a hearing, just a procedural thing.

Then a date is scheduled on the calendar that works for both attorneys and the judge. It can be months or weeks away, depending on the laws where you live. In some states, if it involves the kids, it cannot take longer than six weeks to have a hearing. Where I live, there is no law about that. The case gets heard when the case gets heard.

Then you prepare your witnesses and figure out who will testify. You might not even be put on the stand. If it's the PC's observation that your ex is unstable, then it could just be the PC who testifies. And like FD said, you answer questions in the way you want to answer them. You are not answering the questions in a confessional booth, you are answering questions to win your case.

Your L will ask you very simply questions that typically you answer "yes" or "no" to. Very easy. "momtara, is it true that you have been concerned that your ex is not taking his medication, and how that might impact his ability to care for the kids?" You answer, "Hell yes."

Then the opposing L might say something like, "Nothing has happened to concern you about your ex's behavior, is that correct?" And you would say, "I always have concerns about his stability when he's around the kids. They're very young."

You turn every question around to what you want to say. If the L keeps trying to get you to say nothing has happened, you just repeat the same answer. Then your L will say, "Objection, your honor. My client has answered that question already." And the the judge sustains it because it's true, you answered the questions.

It's really about the PC testifying. Court might want to hear a sentence or two from you, but the person who really matters here is the PC.

Imagine what the outcome of this hearing might be. Best-case: your ex is ordered to get supervised visitation and his doctor and PC check regularly to make sure he is taking his medications. Your ex has to file to change that after a period of time.

Also, I was thinking about your case and the psych eval. Why not (in the motion to change custody) have the PC order the psych eval like you mentioned earlier? (Make sure you talk to the PC about the MMPI-2, and that she is in agreement it's the right kind of eval to order).

This would happen at the follow-up hearing after the ex parte has been filed. That's how it worked in my case. For example, judge might say: Ex has to get a psych eval within 30 days, report to his dr., who reports to the PC. Until the next hearing supervised visitation of the minor children, etc.

Your ex has to be the one motivated to do all of this. Until he has the psych eval, supervised visitation remains.

That way, the judge can give your ex something to work with -- my judge really likes that stuff because it feels like one party is recommending a reasonable solution. And in this case, it's an extra data point that the judge might want.

You may not be able to see the report, or maybe you only get to read it in your L's office, because you're the ex spouse now and everyone cares about confidentiality. Also, in this scenario, the onus to pay for the psych eval will likely fall to your ex.

Thanks.  All really good advice.

Talking my L in about an hour.  I am scared.  She is usually so busy that she kind of doesn't really present my options clearly.  I am going to try to be direct.  I wish I had a friend in family law so that every interaction wouldn't have to be so rushed, and I wouldn't have to wonder if all the implications were considered.

What I am sorry about is that I am about to lose is my exH's trust, because even when we are communicating badly, at least we're communicating.  But I think we would have reached a breaking point sooner or later.

PC thinks if he's on his medicine, he can be unsupervised again in just a few months.  It's not a long term change.

He is now saying he wants to bring the kids to separate doctor's appointments than I already made.  So he is getting erratic - not about hurting them, but about stuff in general.

It would be a bigger gift if he actually made some kind of threat, because then it would be clearer what needed to be done.  Unfortunatley, he is smart or sane enough not to show his hand like that.   The ones who text you and threaten you at least can be dealt with.

As for making him pay for things, he has noo money.  I have noo money.  That doesn't give me satisfaction or make it easier, but it could help with leverage, I guess.

When I started dealing with court, I thought like a civilian  *)  Now, it's just a big chess game. The psych eval is part of a strategy, it's not a meaningful thing, if that makes sense. It's a chess piece you move around the board.

Questions for your L:

How does the ex parte process work?

Is there a time period in which the ex parte has to be heard? Six weeks? Longer?

Is there a hearing that you will have to attend or testify at on behalf of the ex parte?

After the ex parte hearing, will there be a separate hearing to modify custody?

Does the PC have to testify? Does the Dr. have to testify?

Can they provide sworn affadavits instead? (cheaper)

If PC doesn't testify, or provide an affadavit, what happens to my case?

Can the ex parte order state that the PC wants a psych eval ordered, or does that have to be a separate order?

Is asking the PC to order the psych eval something she can do?

If so, will you be able to see the results of the psych eval?

Can the psych eval be made a condition of reinstating unsupervised visitation?

Who will the judge ask to pay for it?

If ex doesn't have any money to get one done, then what?

How much is this likely to cost?

Is there anything you can do to minimize costs?

I can tell you that having an ex who makes lots of threats doesn't solve anything or get you closer to what you want. Getting third-party professionals involved and documenting ex's behavior is what worked for me. I was barely relevant to the case, court doesn't care much about the other parent. They already know we don't think the other parent is capable, that's a given.

When you see your lawyer, sit across from her, and talk with her as an equal.  Don't buy in to her rush - just relax and talk with her, and take notes.  If she stands up or otherwise indicates that the meeting is over, and you haven't got all the information you need, don't stand up or do anything else - "body language" - which agrees with her rush.  Stay sitting and say, "I have a few more questions - please sit down and let's finish those."

Remember, you are her boss.  She works for you.  It is her job to answer your questions.  You are right to ask all the relevant questions you have - that's the smart thing to do, to inform yourself, and it's her job to give you all the relevant information, about how the legal process works, and what choices you have in your case.

The key will be body language - things we all do that mean, "I want to end this meeting." and "I agree to end this meeting now."  Usually we kind of automatically agree when someone wants to end a meeting, but you can stop yourself from doing that, and make it clear that the meeting will be over when your questions have been answered, and not until then.  She won't have you forcibly removed from her office, so her only option will be to sit down and politely answer your questions.

Talked to her - have a clearer picture.  Will post more later. 

My lawyer does work for me, but she takes less money than usual... .I'd feel more like a boss if I brought in the big bucks!    She has a child, tho, so she sympathizes with me. 

So lawyer said she would file an order to show cause.  She said I should first find out if PC would write a letter (cheaper than testifying, as Livedandlearned said) and also ask the PC if she will talk to my L.  I called PC back.  PC wasn't sure she could write a letter, had to consider it, but agreed to talk to my L.

My L called me back and said that the PC has to give her recommendation based on the last meeting anyway, so once she gives it, we can then negotiate with lawyers and maybe avoid court.

What we'll do is agree that he has to get back on medication, be stabilized, doctors give periodic reports, and our PC has to be the intermediary.

Have to pay a big retainer so my L can deal with this.  Really frustrating and I wonder if by doing this, I am not asking for more things I should ask for.  I am maybe pushing him to get back on his meds, and what I get out of it is a month or two of supervised visitation until he does that.  It's worth it if it protects my kids for a few months, but a steep price to pay for just a few months of peace of mind.  I wonder if I should ask for more things, like:

-He has to have a custody eval with a forensic psychologist (not a psych eval, which my PC thinks wouldn't make a diff at this point)

-I get sole legal custody because he tries to interfere in medical decisions etc. (he keeps saying he is going to make separate dr appointments for the kids than the ones I am taking them to)

Our PC said she'd be fine with him being with the kids unsupervised when on his meds.  I don't know that he's so much different on them.  The big difference I noticed was that since he has been off, he keeps asking me to get back together and is more depressed.  On the meds, he was less depressed but still imagined things sometimes.  PC is a forensic psychologist, but has seen exH only a half dozen times.  She doesn't think he has a pers disorder and thinks he is schizo.  Thing is, no one really can forecast what he might do.  She thinks a psych eval would be a waste because he's already being seen by shrinks who talk to her.  A custody eval over a long period of time, in my opinion, provide more info and would keep his visitation supervised for some time.  It could cost $10K including lawyer fees and such, and neither of us has money, so it's not worth doing if it's just going to result in some very slight change like he gets day visits, still unsupervised.  That's what PC thinks he should have - one day visit a week.  I am not sure it changes anything; unsupervised time is unsupervised time.

Regarding sole legal custody, in the end, I have usually gotten what I want - it's just frustrating dealing with him.  So that, I don't think I need right now, and will only make him feel powerless.  

So even if I am not getting much out of this - except that he has to go back on his meds - I guess I can just see this as a first step in documenting his behavior.  He does have two shrinks watching him.  Unfortunately, his regular psychologist (not the psychiatrist) thinks he's pretty much fine.  It's the psychiatrist and our PC who are more worried.

I just worry he'd be one of those people who shows no signs of a problem, then suddenly does something.  I mean, after this, he now knows that I am willing to take a stand - which means if he decides to stop taking his meds again, he may do something hurtful at that time, and I won't know.  PC's response to me on that was that I'd be able to tell if he's off.  Well, not right away, necessarily.

I am catastrophizing, true, but really, I don't care about minor things happening to the kids (they are not with him long and it wouldn't have a big effect).  The only thing I worry about is him hurting them (or them and himself) in order to hurt me.  PC thinks that on his meds, he's not a big danger.  Who knows.

Instead of "He should get back on his meds.", can you say, "He should stay on his meds without interruption for 90 days."?  (Or he could just take them once or twice and say "I'm back on my meds."

Is there a record of what meds he's on, and how many mg, and how often?  So you can say, "On meds per Dr. X's prescription - 20 mg Such-And-Such twice a day and 100 mg of So-And-So once a day."?

Can you subpoena the prescription so the court has a record of what he is supposed to be taking?  Otherwise he could be taking something but not everything the doctor prescribed.

I don't know what "Custody eval with forensic psychologist" means, or how it's different from "psych evals".  My view is, both parents should have objective psych evals - that's the only way the court can know what all the issues really are.  Other than cost - ours cost $500 each - I don't know why any attorney would not want objective psych evals.

I think where you're at, you should have one list of what you ask for if there is a settlement, and a different list of what you will ask for if you go to court.  For example, you could say,

If Ex goes back on his meds by the end of July, and stays on them without interruption for 90 days - we need to see the prescription and he needs to be evaluated to make sure he is taking what was prescribed - and if he will back off and cooperate regarding the kids appointments and other matters - no unreasonable behavior during those 90 days - then we will agree to keep custody as it is so long as things stay good.

But if he doesn't stay on his meds, or if he fights over things during those 90 days (August through October), then we will go for full custody for Ms. Momtara and supervised visitation for Dad.  At that point we won't be open to a settlement, and we will ask the court for psych evals for both parents so all the issues will be on the record.  We will ask that Dad have no contact with the kids' doctors until he shows he can handle that appropriately.

... .or something like that.  One list of what is acceptable if there is an agreement, and a much tougher description of how things will go if you have to get the court involved.

You might also say, "I don't have a lot of money and I will need to use it for the kids, so if we go to court I will ask that Dad pay all my legal costs."

I think your attorney probably doesn't have much experience with people who have mental problems.  There is a big difference between talking to a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and objective testing.  Lots of crazy people can fool even experienced professionals, but objective testing shows what is really going on.  If there is already a professional opinion that he may be schizophrenic, then why on earth would any professional want him to have unsupervised contact with minor children?  Why not test him and find out for sure if he has schizophrenia, or something else very serious, and protect the kids?

So many professionals involved - your lawyer, and the PC, and the psychologist, and the psychiatrist, and none of them seem to care enough to do a simple, two-hour test to find out the truth.  If it was me, I wouldn't put up with it - I would tell my attorney to file a motion asking for psych evals Monday morning, and if she didn't do it, I'd find an attorney who would.

Prescriptions/meds can change. You might want to specify that he remain"compliant" with his currently prescribed prescription regimen.

Yeah, that makes sense, but maybe get into the record what doctor has prescribed them.  He might go to a different doctor, and tell him he's fine, and get a prescription for aspirin or something, and then say he's complying with what that doctor prescribed... .

Like momtara said, it's a lot of money to have a judge say, "He has to take his meds."

I don't see a good consequence here, or a very realistic way to enforce this. Maybe people can be checking up on him, but then what? Back to court to file a motion for contempt? More money thrown at what? The strategy here seems like filing many motions for contempt until the judge does what? This just seems headed for churn.

If money wasn't an issue, you would get a psych eval, is that right? I know your L is saying a custody eval with a forensic psychologist, but keep digging at this until you understand what this is about. I found the court, and my lawyer, who is a good lawyer who really gets mental illness, to be incredibly fuzzy and vague about all this stuff. I think it's because the courts don't really know what to do about mental illness and custody. They just don't. They know that it's an issue and has an effect on the kids, but for a judge to rule on this, he or she needs something to work with.

It seems like you're choosing between the lesser of two evils. Spend money to do this right, and be broke, but have peace of mind. Or chip away and let the process lead you to see where it goes, and maybe be less broke, but also have less peace of mind.

There may be a hybrid strategy, with most of the benefits of court, but not the cost.

A strategy where you have a plan for court - a plan to win big - and you show that plan to the other side, so they have a motivation to settle out of court.  And a clear set of expectations for the settlement - "I will settle if you agree to X and Y and Z" - which will make the situation better than it is, and also put the other party on notice that you will hold firm to those boundaries.

What's critical is to carefully work out those expectations - what is acceptable if you settle, and what you will go for if you go to court - and a big enough difference between them to motivate the other party to settle.

I agree that agreements don't enforce themselves.  My wife was diagnosed with BPD, and she agreed to get psychotherapy, and that was written into the court order, but she never did it, and the court never checked.

But... .she knows that if things don't go well - if her behavior is a problem - and we ever go back to court, I can show that she hasn't complied with the court order and the kids are being impacted by that.  On many occasions, she has indicated she will do something destructive, but she hasn't actually done it - a change from before the court order, which I think is probably because she knows I will take whatever legal action is needed if her behavior goes south.

A lot of this has to do with what your ex will consider to be negative consequences;  what does he not want to happen?

But if he has a lawyer, also keep in mind how she will see things:  what will she advise her client to do, to avoid legal consequences?  Sometimes an irrational person, who won't listen to his ex, can be influenced by his attorney - he might listen to her when he won't listen to you... .

We will ask for:

-He has to go back on his meds as decided by his treating professionals

-His docs have to give monthly reports to our PC, saying he's staying on his meds

-PC continues to act as an intermediary

-He has supervised visitation until his doctors *and PC* (I just thought of that) agree he is stabilized.

Remaining questions:

-Regarding should I ask for an eval?  PC says a standard psych evalu would be irrelevant because he is already being diagnosed by his own docs and she has her own opinion, too.  She said a psych eval won't show anything new.

I can still ask my L about it.  There are also 'best interest evaluations' and other types of things - never fully sure which is the best route with that.

Maybe this won't be as quick as it seems... .the PC maybe won't decide that he can be unsupervised all that quickly.

If psych evals were $500, might not be a big deal.  In my case, it's recommended to hire a really good forensic psych.  That can be $6,000 or more.  I keep wanting to say money doesn't matter, but I just don't know if I have that.  It can be a bargaining chip though.  Just like making him pay... .hmmm, you are spurring me to think of good ideas... .

One distinction is whether there is an objective test, like the MMPI-2, or just opinions from one or more professionals, who might not agree, and who are likely to use vague language.

I'm not a professional in this field - I'm a physical scientist - so part of what I see is the distinction between opinions and knowledge.  Opinions are a dime-a-dozen, and courts may or may not be impressed with vague, qualified statements by professionals based only on their perceptions of the person.

But objective testing gets much closer to being a fact.  The MMPI-2 is based on tons of research and has been proven through decades of experience - many thousands of subjects and hundreds of studies all over the world.

When the MMPI-2 says "This person has BPD.", it's pretty much a fact that this person has BPD.

And there is also a ton of research showing the impact of a parent's BPD on the child.

So... .beware the professionals who want to keep doing what they're doing - tip-toeing around the issues and not really stating anything as a fact.

Look to objective testing, to provide the court with more-or-less factual information which really can't be ignored, if it is presented clearly.

By choosing between the lesser of two evils, I meant asking for everything, versus limping along and letting things play out hearing by hearing. Everything being legal custody, supervised visitation, and completely kitchen sinking things with a MMPI-2, either through a custody eval or just one MMPI-2 for him.

I think the objective test can be really effective when there is no data on the table, and I think it can be reasonably effective when there is a bunch of data already on the table. That's how it seems to be playing out in your case, momtara. What you need to figure out is the right combination of requests that will created an extended state of supervised visitation.

You are also in a position to ask your ex for a psych eval, but not take it yourself. Even though I think it's highly unlikely a psychologist can dx your ex as schizophrenic vs. personality disorder based on a handful of visits, the idea that your ex could be schizophrenic would make me want to know for certain. It has a genetic component to it, there are medications, and specific behaviors. The only issue is if your ex has a substance abuse problem. That can make it difficult to get a straight up dx. Doctors (at least where I live) like to see people sober for six months before running diagnostic tests. Also, what would also tip things toward a MMPI-2 is that the judge might not think that meds for anxiety is all that serious. The PC makes a statement, the doctor makes a statement, maybe you testify. It's possible that the judge doesn't understand what the big deal is. You want the judge to be worried about his or her own reputation if something bad happens. You want the judge to be sitting there thinking, "I'm going to look like an idiot if I don't do something now and a bad thing happens while this guy is running around with two little kids, not on medication."

How much is it for just one person to get a psych eval (MMPI-2)? Here, it's about $1500-2000. In my case, there were enough data on the table to point to N/BPDx having some serious issues. No one ever once raised the question that I would need to take one. And if your ex doesn't have money to get one done, then perhaps the consequence is that the eval doesn't happen, but the consequence is clear: visitation stays supervised. Let him figure out how to come up with the funds.

Whatever you do, you have to give the judge something to work with -- he or she needs to be able to say to your ex: This is what the deal is right now. You do this thing, and for a long time you report to these people, and you can have unsupervised again.

And it needs to be a high enough bar that you get your money's worth from this round in court! And have some peace of mind that your ex can't just waltz back into unsupervised.

That's where I stand right now with N/BPDx. He was ordered to get anger management classes, a MMPI-2, and substance abuse treatment within 30 days of our last hearing, which was back in March, I think. He didn't do any of those things. When the judge was making his ruling, I remember he said very clearly, "These are all very reasonable requests, and N/BPDx has 30 days to get them done." Those were my requests, and the judge's timeline.

When you give your judge the problem, then lay out reasonable solutions with consequences, you make it much more likely to get somewhere in the ballpark of what you want. Otherwise the judge will treat you like a little kid and say, "The dad has to take his medication. The doctors will decide if he is doing ok." In which case, you have a lot of ambiguity.

The judges have a presumption, that the order will fix things and you're not expected to return to court.  Yeah, we've all come to learn that long term issues are not fixed by short term band-aids.  Long term monitoring is the issue here.  Judges prefer things that get fixed and go away.  A typical order might be: get on meds and after X months the supervised requirement goes away and the order ends.  That sort of order requires you to go back to court all over again upon the next relapse.  In many cases there are side effects to meds and its not a surprise when the person quits taking them after a while.  That's a real risk here - already happened - and frankly is likely to happen again and again without long term monitoring that has teeth.  So try to get an order that doesn't "end" after first compliance.

I recall when we first separated and the assistant prosecutor offered my then-separated spouse a plea deal of Anger Management.  It was refused of course, but taking a few classes would have been only a short term fix for her long term behaviors anyway.  The only benefit of consequence would have been History indicating problems.

If ex is required to be on meds for 90 days and he follows the order what happens then. I mean what if he stops his meds 120 days later. Did the original order lapse after 90 days or does ex need to present results on a monthly basis after the 90 day period.

This leaves a trail for the future.

"A typical order might be: get on meds and after X months the supervised requirement goes away and the order ends.  That sort of order requires you to go back to court all over again upon the next relapse."

Very good points... .

It seems like the thing that continues is that he will be monitored by several people.  If he goes off again, then I guess they'd recommend he doesn't see the kids unsupervised for a while. 

That said, a real slam dunk would indeed be if someone were to say, this person really needs supervised visitation for a long long period of time.  Or if I could hire an expert to give a better diagnosis than these various professionals, one that means he has to have really good treatment for a long period of time before he can see the kids unsupervised. 

It would also be a good idea to state explicitly who can do the supervision. His parents? Someone you must both agree to? How will you know that he is, in fact, supervised? If it's his parents, and they think you're being ridiculous, is there a chance that they will "pretend" to supervise? If you suspect that he is not taking medication, and report to the PC, what then? Does she call off the next visit?

Just some additional details to think about. Leaving things open-ended creates headaches, in my experience.

THANK YOU.  Those kinds of things are very helpful.

I think the parents are too anxiety ridden not to supervise.  So they may be ok doing that.

Livedandlearned, my L said most of the things you had already said.  You are a godsend!  And a genius.  And a good mom.

Only a professional should supervise, not a family member.  That just complicates things further - family members can't be expected to know how to enforce rules.

And yes, LnL is a genius and a godsend to many of us here, and I'm sure she's a great mom too!

You think that's true about family members?  The PC wasn't thrilled with the idea of a family member supervising either.  However, he lives with his family, and they are usually around him, so I don't see what's wrong with that.  They will just keep an eye on the kids and be with him when he picks them up and drops them off.  The alternative is that he has to see the kids in the county courthouse.  That seems excessive to me.

Well if you know them well you can judge, but the job of supervision is to maintain firm boundaries about exactly what is OK for him to say and do around the kids, and that's what a professional should know how to do.  Having a family member do supervision is probably about the same as no supervision at all.

Let me give you an example:

He's playing or talking with the kids, and he makes a harsh joke at their mother's expense - puts her down cruelly and unfairly, "joking".

A professional might call him aside, and say, "That's not OK.  You can't say things like that in the kids' hearing.  If it happens again, today or any time, I will terminate the visit, and inform the judge what happened."

Would a family member be prepared to handle it that way, knowing that he might not accept their boundaries?  Or would the family member find it easier to just pretend they didn't hear the "joke"?

And if the behavior continued, would the family member actually follow through, and terminate the visit, and inform the court, and then show up in court and tell the judge exactly what happened?  Or would the family member take the path of least resistance and maybe just give him a scowl and hope he got the message?

I guess those are good points.  Hadn't thought of that.  That gets to a basic question I had for the PC, which was, exaclty what is your concern?  While my exH can be manipulative etc., I don't think he's alienating the kids from me or saying/doing inappropriate things.  My big concern is if he'd hurt them to get back at me, physically.  I think his family being around would stop that from happening.  Anything less, I'm not so worried about.

But I'll see what my L thinks.  Maybe after a few weeks of regular supervised he can be supervised by family. 

Thanks for the nice comments, momtara!

You're welcome!

Well, we're going to file the thing today or tomorrow.  Now I'm nervous.  Sooner or later, he will have the kids unsupervised again.  This just ratchets everything up and makes him not trust me.  I don't really think they're in danger for the time being, but I also have to walk on eggshells all the time.  While 'doing nothing' is not an option for now, doing something will just piss him off and make him untrusting.  These doctors don't really understand how his mind works.  I guess I have to trust them, but I just wish there were more Bill Eddys out there, lawyers and doctors experienced with BPD.  

I think a lot of us went through this phase, and everybody is unique - just because someone has BPD doesn't mean he'll react lke someone else... .

When my marriage imploded - my wife became violent, and made extreme accusations, so I couldn't be around her safely - for almost a year I worked to save the marriage.  Finally I gave up on that, and went ahead with the divorce, and took a strong approach - disclosed her behavior, had  her deposed, and filed  a motion for a Custody Evaluation.

Of course she didn't like this, and she reacted badly to it.  But her lawyer advised her to control her behavior - this is the phase, during the legal process, when both parties' behavior is watched most closely.  Over time she seemed to realize that acting right would work out best for her, and she has been easier to deal with - at a distance - than she ever was.

The reason is probably that she now knows she can't bullyc me into doing what she wants anymore, and if she acts badly it will work against her.  Nothing will be kept "private" - any behavior that impacts me or the kids will work against her... .

I think telling the PC that you are concerned, and want to know if her concerns are the same -- that's a good conversation to have. Maybe even have that conversation by email so you have a record of it, something you can literally use for free if it's necessary.

Yeah, Matt, setting boundaries works, I guess.  I guess we all get scared, though, of causing so much trauma that it makes things worse instead of better.  Seems like boundaries are the way to go in general.

I told my L all the stuff that's been happening.  None of it involves any behavior that would put the kids in danger, though.  The only thing I am going on is our PC's recommendation that she just issued, saying that my exH should go back on his meds, because he is unstable and a potential danger off them.  The PC did NOT say that she recommends supervised visitation, like I thought she was going to.  She said she can't go that far.

So I said to my L:  If you think this is a conversation among attorneys, and not worth going to court over, please let me know.  She said she'd like to see a pattern of delusions and such.  There are delusions, but they are more my exH claiming I didn't let him talk to the kids on the phone, etc.

It's like Livedandlearned said, they want to see actual problematic behavior.  I am waiting to see what my L recommends, but she's so busy, she doesn't seem to opine a lot and just wants to do what i tell her.  Unfortunately, I really don't know how to pursue this.

I feel like I still have to try to get visitation suspended until he's on his meds, and PC seemed to feel that was the way to go, too.  If I sit here and do nothing, that looks bad down the road.

Ultimately my goal is to get him back on meds and stabilized.  But my L feels his L is slow to comply with stuff and talking to his L may not get anywhere too quickly.    We can file an order and temporarily suspend visitation, but it may not be so strong now. 

PC believes my exH's own doctor's diagnosis is better than a psych exam, so no exam.

Now I'm feeling a little tricked.  The PC said she thought I should file an emergency motion, but now she's not putting that in writing.  Also she told me my exH's doc said he was concerned about him having the children, now she says he didn't say that.  She does still think I should file, just she won't put it in writing.  She put in writing that he should get back on his meds and he's unstable.    I am wondering if she exaggereated what my exH's doctor said.  That said, it wouldn't hurt for him to be on his meds.  Is it worth the thousands I'm about to spend in court, and the aggravation, and him now not trusting me?  Maybe I could have spent that money on more counseling and learning to set better boundaries.  Agh, the ol' back and forth.  I guess I need to be strong.

People on this board have said, "Court can't make him stay on his medication."    This may be a harder fight than I thought.  He just may not want to be on it.

Guess I have to be strong.  I don't necessarily think he's a danger right now, that's the thing.  He hasn't done anything threatening since I left.  

We have stayed out of family court.  I want to keep staying out of family court, really.  Otherwise he will go back and ask for more parenting time when the kids are a little older.

Yes, few professionals want to put something in writing that may draw the ire of the other parent.  I recall that my ex actually filed a grievance against a sheriff's investigator for firmly seeing my vacation with my preschooler as not an actionable event to trigger an Amber Alert.  She made no friends by doing that but I'm sure the investigator wished it hadn't happened.  Professionals don't want grievances or complaints on record about them.

While court can't and won't make him stay on his medication, it can set basic requirements for parenting, based on past history, doctors' recommendations, incidents, etc.  So it won't say "take your meds."  It might say, "you have to be taking your meds in order to see your children."  And that's the issue, it might or it might not.

A word of advice... .don't overthink it.  As we learned back in school when taking tests, when facing an intractable or perplexing problem, often the first answer that came to you was more likely to be the right one.  And often too in our sort of cases there is no one right answer, it's a spectrum of options.  (That's a concept used in the MMPI2, sometimes there is no correct answer, just options with varying ill-fitting levels of vagueness or wrongness.  Which door do you choose when you don't know which door has the tiger and which door has the prince?)

If you decide to file, you could put into the documents, "On July  2 Ms. PC recommended that I take action to prevent Mr. Ex from having unsupervised time with the kids until he is back on his meds."

If you do that, it would be courteous to let the PC know you are doing it.

In the future, she will know that whatever she tells you could show up in court records and she will have to step up and tell the truth, or lie under oath.  She may be more careful what she tells you, or she may step up like she should.