BPDFamily.com

So if you're working on an agreement with your mentally ill spouse, and it's been demonstrated he needs therapy, and your attorney wants monthly notifications that he's going, but you generally know he tries to go, will putting that into an agreement make things worse, or better?  Have to consider that he has abandonment issues (like most BPD's) and often thinks falsely that he's going to lose the kids.  He is able to be rational and hold a job - but has some unspeiified illness (pstd? ocd? has mentioned a few).  The kids are too young to speak for themselves.  I largely trust him but he has done a few scary things that make me worry a little bit, and if I have this chance, should I take it?  My only reason for asking for notifications is to make sure he doesn't quit therapy any time soon, which he threatened to do recently.  I was thinking of making them just biannual for a year or two, so it's not in-your-face, but it's still so he can't just quit completely.

Whether this could make it bad/worse is a crap shoot.  But, provided court will go along, it is important that the order reads correctly and requires, not only confimration that he keeps going, but that he is making an attempt at improvement.  Meaning, the therapsit selected must be willing to report back to the court that strides are being made.  IMO without this there would be little hope for improvement.  I think it is a big IF that the court supports this type of language in the Order.  Basically the therapist will act as an impartial third party that reports progress, or not, back to the court.

It also may be helpful, if not done alreayd, to have a psych eval done to definitively daignose the specific illness and this would make the therapy required that much more beneficial knowing what exactly is the issue.

In my case, I have had a difficult time having my ex actually psychologically evaluated even with a psych eval court ordered.  My courthouse is particularly bad.  Is that an oxymoron or contradiction in terms?

I guess you need to meet a high standard, right?  You've actually tried to get him evaluated?

I had Petitioned about five years ago when my ExBPDNPDw would not agree to me taking now S9 to therapy for his behavior.  The Master felt this an odd disagreement.  So she ordered us both to get "psychologicals."  After three more trips to court to actually get it documented of what to actually do for the eval, MMPI-2, ex provided a bogus evaluation report prepared by a quakc Dr. who was not qualfiied to administer the MMPI-2.  I gave up.

Two months ago I again went in front of the master with now additional issues with custody.  New Master with litlte experience, he claimed she "looked" OK and there are no concerns with mental health.  A "visual" inspection.

So, the Orders must be specific and ironclad about what needs to happen and by who, where the report is sent, etc.  Coincidentally, this is explained in most family court procedures... .that get overlooked and are not followed. 

It seems like the lesson learned from your past experiences is that 1. court orders ordered therapy have no teeth, and 2. your ex can comply or not comply, and there isn't much anyone can, or will, do. He weaseled around this current go-round, he will probably figure out how to do it again. The only person who (truly) cares if your ex is in therapy or taking his medication is you. The judge only cares if the documentations about concerns adds up. The doctors probably don't care at all. They know if they are subpoenaed, all they have to say is, "He told us he was taking his meds." It will cost you a lot of money to hear them say that. 

There is no way to "prove" that someone is doing therapy or taking medication. Returning vets prescribed drugs they don't want to take will refill their prescriptions and go to their appointments... .they are "complying."

If you think that "notification of therapy" is going to set off your ex, and there isn't much to be gained, that's probably something to think about.

I don't think of anything in a court order as meaningful unless it fits into my overall strategy (ie. long term) to show a history of N/BPDx's non-compliance or unless it will draw out a double set of both middle fingers, which always helps my case when we're before the judge.

So:

Yes, include it, if it works for your long-term strategy.

No, don't include it, if you don't see this as part of your long-term strategy.