BPDFamily.com

Hello,
Things for me have gone from standstill to tornado. :-)
I _finally_ decided to file formally in court.  Settlement talks are not going well.  STBX is ramping up her Adult-toddler behavior. The kids are going to be getting pulled at by mom, the accusations continue. We have major hurdles.  STBX is becoming more retaliatory, certainly after learning that I have filed.  She’s avoiding legal service at the moment.

At the end of the day, what I’m learning is that I believe what I want is a parallel parenting plan.  I had anticipated that we could work out a more amicable friendly parenting plan.  But, like the finances and everything else in this divorce, contact and entanglements mean conflict and usually, me losing or the kids suffering. 

Given that, what are the feelings and advice about creating a parenting plan that’s working for not so much combative ex spouses, but, passive aggressive, manipulative, blackmailing ex spouses?

I have gotten to the point that just the idea of having as little contact as possible with STBX almost brings tears of joy and relief.

What are good legal clauses to include, if this is a good idea?

Thanks.

"My parenting time is my time, your parenting time is your time."  If a child is ill, the exchange still happens.  Mother doesn't get to cancel my time for some claimed illness.  I too am capable of caring for a sick child.  I too can take a child to a doctor or other appointments.

Also, defogging just wrote an  excellent post:

Notifying your ex of any vacation (time away) plans and dates does not require ex's approval or permission.  It is a notice, just follow your county's rules for advance notice and other details.

Review your county's list of holidays to alternate between parents.  Strike out any that don't apply to either of you.  Generally, any holidays she gets this year means you get them next year.  Essentially you alternate years for each holiday.  If there is one holiday she wants every year, then you get to pick one as well that you get every year.

Typically only the children's birthdays are observed in the parenting schedule.  If you two want to include the parents' birthdays — or not — then good to have that clearly stated.

Parenting schedules have these priorities:
  (1) holidays, per schedule
  (2) vacations, per notice
  (3) regular scheduled times
You can include a holiday in your vacation, it just has to be your holiday that year.

Right of First Refusal (ROFR) ... A parenting plan can include times when a parent might have to offer the other parent time to care for the children before selecting other options.  Ponder all the ramifications, it can help bolster your parenting, or it could just as easily hinder your parenting.  Usually it is phrased that if one parent has to be away from caring for the children for more than a certain number of hours then the other parent has a right of first refusal before the kids can be offered elsewhere.  Exceptions would be school or daycare — imagine a day where school is closed and you want them in daycare — that would be an invasion of your standard parenting time.  Other exceptions could be if the kids are with grandparents, on a trip with grandparents, outings with kids' friends in those parents' care, special occasions with friends and neighbors, etc.  Why?  Imagine your ex claiming your time because your kids are having a sleepover with their friends or your relatives and the ROFR is triggered.

My GF used CustodyXChange software.  It has standard inputs you can modify.  Search in here too.  There are many threads on what to include in custody sharing agreements.  I suggest it's best to be as detailed as possible now and in the formal agreement.  If things improve down the road, it's easier to relax tight restrictions than it is to go back to court and tighten things up.   CoMo

Thank you everyone.  I think we (STBX and I) covered a lot of the groundwork.  We used Custody XChange - in as much as we could .  We got to our impasse, after some back and forth.  Ended up going to lawyers.

I have beat the drum for "my time, my rules." Try as I might, it seems insurmountable to get to the point of creating this separation in parenting. She can't let go of RoFR - but for her she extends it to school, daycare, etc. It's intrusive to say the least. My kids can be home with siblings and not a parent for after school and other stretches. STBX sees being there with the kids as a right, obligation, and her divine mission as a mom (apologies for my sarcasm). I really think a judge would give me much more fair deal. I guess I could get matter-of-fact and say that if I'm paying child support (and I will pay quite a bit) then, I want my time protected.

I've been reading around on this.
I think a gap in my plan is about how to regulate cancellations of time.  I think certainly each of us will have time in which we can't take the kids for a day or more.  Given that I'm trying to make some boundaries, and write it all ahead of time (not count on "we'll working it out" goodwill at the time), what are good phrases or arrangements?

I am thinking of:
  If a parent is unable to [have normal visitation / custody], s/he must notify the other parent [time period, or as soon as possible].  Cancelling parent can [have parenting time] to make up for missed time by arranging [some or all of the missed days] within 30 day period, if the other parent agrees...

I'm trying to think of how this would play out either way.  So many of these parenting clauses cut both ways. But, the question of how to handle this situation is important, since it's certain to happen, and must be written beforehand.

Thanks!

"If the other parent agrees..."  Um, yeah, you'd be likely to agree to reasonable make up time, you know she wouldn't ever agree, right?

As for RoFR, you've met an impasse with her on this, her view is too one-sided.  Well, if it goes to court you can stand firm for what you see as right and reasonably fair.  Unless she caves or you cave, a judge will order some terms that, while not necessarily "fair", are almost surely "less unfair" to you than what she demands.

So pretty much the tornado we forecasted.   It sucks but seems to be par for the course.

My advice: don't give in too much.  She will feel entitled to everything but be careful what you cave on because that gives her control. And she'll try to gain more and more control over time..    We cannot tame their inner beast.   

Good question about having to cancel time.

I'm with FD -- she's going to see "the rules" as applying to you ("You are REQUIRED to send the kids to me if you're not with them for 30 minutes or more, blah, blah, blah, entitlement"), but not to her ("I'm an amazing mom with equally amazing, brave, stunning friends, who are better for the kids than you, and they will watch them when I'm gone for 5 days doing whatever I want").

DH's kids' mom was out of town for a week or so a few years ago. She decided to send a mass email to neighbors, friends, and -- oh -- I guess she remembered to include DH, amazing. It basically put that time "up for grabs" for anyone who would write back that they could do child care. DH called her out on it, for treating him as no different than a next door neighbor, but she's still the same.

So -- hmmm.

At least one thing I would be doing now, ahead of time, is gauging the support level of family who can do child care for you on your time. Ask around and see who is available for last-minute day or overnight care, either at your place or theirs. Same with kids' friends families that you trust, church friends, etc. So, when the time comes that you need to be gone for a day, you already know who you can call FIRST to cover your time. Don't flaunt that to her, though.

It may be that you would need to ask her to cover a day or two for you, if nothing else pans out. I would do that 2nd after trying to manage it yourself first, and I wouldn't expect any reciprocity from her. Don't ask to trade... or do, but don't expect her to follow through, or do expect her to make it a HUGE complicated deal. Don't ask her to cover after explaining that your sister couldn't do it after all.

Expect she may do weird stuff -- like maybe digging her feet in, saying she can't take the kids, it's not her problem, you're so irresponsible, she's not doing it. That's where you need to be prepared ahead of time to be pretty flexible and have Plan C, D, and E. I would never make her your "last possible plan". Don't get in a position where you're desperate for her to take the kids. This may mean that when you see "I need to take a trip out of town" coming up on your radar, you are SUPER planful -- (A), call your parents, see if they can come to the house and stay. (B), if they can't, see if kids' mom can cover. (C), assuming she's difficult and weird and doesn't agree, call church friends to see if they can help. (D), that doesn't work, so you ALREADY checked to see if the kids can come with you on the work trip and chill at the hotel room.

See what I mean? I guess what I've learned over the years is that the more legwork you do in the background, the less you "have to" rely on what she will/won't do in order for you to move forward with your plans. Yeah, it's a lot. But imagine (as you are doing) the blissful freedom of not having to "make her" do something, not having to "wait for her to get back to you", not having to "explain why it's better this way" and arguing... just one text "Hey can you take the kids Thurs 4pm to Fri 4pm, let me know by noon today or I'll assume it's a no go". She says Yes, great! Problem solved. She says No or stonewalls... no problem, you already built in a "move forward" mechanism.

...

I will note that maybe this seems two-faced or like doing the same thing she would do. Planning on anyone else to watch the kids but her.

Well... she's disordered, you're not. And you won't be flaunting all the other child care options to her, or treating her as "less than" in front of others. You're just quietly in the background planning your own life, not making a public show of "she's no better for the kids than Neighbor Bob".

...

OK, looking at some of your thoughts:


Yes. If your line in the sand is "no ROFR for brief after school stretches/no school days", then stick to it. You are just as capable of finding appropriate care settings (whether home alone with oldest sibling, or grandma, or whatever) as her. Unless there's something you want WAY more than ROFR (I think FD often mentions tie breaker status for education, medical, etc), don't feel like you have to give in.


Less unfair than her... yes.


It's fine to think this... though I would recommend against saying it on the record anywhere. At least in our state, PT and CS are seen as "firewalled". You get PT even if you aren't paying CS. Nonpayment of CS can't be used to withhold PT. Paying more CS does not equate to "paying" for more or less PT. I'd be concerned that if any kind of equation was verbalized or written in a documented way, that that could be held against you.

...


That's fine, as long as you recall what we talked about up top -- I would expect her to never follow through on giving you makeup days. You could have this clause in there as backup, and in a way it could be good to document her nonagreement with giving makeup days. I guess I would use it more as "documentation generator" than "guarantee that SamwizeGamgee gets makeup days with the kids". Does that make sense? That is -- I'd see any time that she actually complied with it as "an amazing bonus". Expect to never get your makeup days, and then be pleasantly surprised when you do. Don't expect the fact that YOU gave HER makeup days for her cancellations as leverage to get yours, if that makes sense.

But DO see including that clause as a way to generate LOTS of documentation of her unfairness, withholding, manipulation, etc.

...

So, putting it all together:

Yeah, have a makeup days clause in there. Look through a few boilerplate ones online, though yours is pretty fine, and get something on paper. But don't expect the fact that it's on paper to mean anything to her, and don't expect her to follow through on allowing you makeup days. Plan ahead in your own life to minimize the need for this clause however you can, but have it there to generate examples of her noncompliance.

At least, that's been our experience.

You're doing the right things in thinking ahead to get as good a PP as you can, before it's signed. That's so smart to do, and it will save you grief down the road. Maybe that sound counter to what I've mentioned above, but we started with DH's PP saying "DH can be with the kids whenever he's not at work". Yes, that was the whole thing. Guess how well THAT went  :(

So, like mart555 mentioned:


get "as good" of a PP now as you can, AND at the same time expect her to fight it, bicker, complain, not follow it, "follow" it technically but not in practice... etc. And know that ahead of time, so you can right off the bat start documenting her inability to comply with the plan she agreed to.

OK, that's a lot! Let's keep talking if you want.

kells76

ROFR is a serious boundary issue and can provide a path for your ex to intrude into your parallel parenting.  Guard your boundary well.  CoMo

Beware of standard boilerplate clauses that assume and presume sincere cooperation.  Some are "mutually agreed exchange location" or "reasonable telephone contact".  Can you see how those vague phrases could be twisted to put you at a disadvantage?

Good points everyone.  Thanks!

In my gut, I knew that phrases like "reasonable" mean two different things!

I'm looking through my counter offer now, and trying to close loop holes and see how it's going to be used against me.  And yes, she will find ways just to irk me.  All with a "poor me, I'm doing everything I can" attitude. She'll be late when she wants to.  She already tried to play things both ways to her advantage (too long of a story for here).  I sense what you are all saying. 

I am hoping for a level-minded judge.  If I come across as too much a controller, trying to cut mom out of my weeks, and her kids, it could play out badly for me. 

I am glad that I finally filed.  It feels so much better that at least someone will hear my side.  I'm so used to STBX's interrogations and being cornered.  It will be a relief to go to trial.  That sounds weird!

Perhaps I missed it.

What is the ROFR that she is wanting?

Sounds like something about you not being in house while they are with siblings.

Best,

FF

Her version is if kids (one or more) would be alone, or in child care over 4 hours, she gets ROFR.  My version used to be if overnight care is required. But, after reading up a bit, I want to toss out the entire concept.  The kids are 10, 13, and 16. The 16 y.o. is not a nurturing caretaker kind of kid, although he's self-sufficient. The younger two can handle things.  

I am trying to think of when ROFR would apply.  On regular school days, I don't foresee much need. At best, I'd have a caretaker get them from school and land them at home and start light homework. Then be alone for an hour or so.  There will be days I work and the kids aren't at school, but, the kids can be resilient enough, and I can be creative enough to obtain care under my own power. I think ROFR might apply mostly in the summer, or when I go on trips.  Thankfully, I can steer most of that to my non-custodial weeks, so that will be good for me and the kids. I am assuming the responsibility of getting them to camps, or having adult care for summer days if I can't be there.

ROFR has become a symbolic principle for me. I need a line and a limit she can't cross. I don't want her snooping around, or getting the kids to snitch who was the babysitter either.  Let me be the dad I can be. I think that sums up my last stand in this battle for what I can salvage from my family life, and that's why it's important.

Considering the kid's ages, I agree that any idea of ROFR, if it ever happens, be limited to overnights at most.  Some states consider "responsible" children as young as 8 to be okay as latchkey children, that is, going to and coming from school, etc.

And many daycares have an upper age limit.  My son stopped going to before/after-school daycare when he entered middle school's 6th grade, 12 years of age was their age limit.  I guess they didn't want to deal with teenagers.

Your goal is to limit all post-divorce communication to only the necessary child-related information.

I think the idea of ROFR has more negatives than positives, when dealing with BPD.

Just say no.

Just to touch on this (good) point, because it may have seemed like I was suggesting "add a boilerplate clause about cancellations":

It's a "both true at once" thing for me.

(A): On the one hand, the most perfectly worded language and airtight PP won't stop your kids' mom from doing what she does. So, in a sense, "it's not about the specific wording".

(B): On the other hand, and at the same time, tighter wording can "make" her act "less bad", or incentivize her to be a little more controlled. Looser wording is an invitation to her to abuse boundaries. So, it IS about the wording, too.

I guess if I were to rephrase my suggestion, it'd be:

Get the best, most airtight wording on a cancellation clause that you can... DON'T include "if both parents agree". AND, at the same time, assume she will balk, disagree, stonewall, etc, and be ready for that, with backup plans, and document her inability to cooperate with specific language in the order.

Ideas for tweaks:

If a parent is unable to have the children on his/her scheduled time, s/he must notify the other parent at least 24 hours in advance. The cancelling parent shall schedule equivalent parenting time to be used within a 30 day period following the date of the last cancelled day. The cancelling parent shall notify the other parent of the dates of the makeup days at least 48 hours in advance of the first makeup day.

Plusses: if you're the cancelling parent, this really protects your PT. It doesn't depend on whether your kids' mom agrees with you having makeup time or not.

Minuses: she could abuse this to perpetually cancel her time, then reschedule during stuff you'd already planned to do with the kids.

Ideas for further tweaks:

"Three strikes" cancellation policy: if there are 3 or more cancellations in a 30 day (or 90, or whatever) period, no makeup time is available any more for the 30 (or 90 etc) days following the date of the last cancellation.

"Three no's" policy: Non-cancelling parent can decline 3 offers of makeup days, as long as they suggest alternatives.

This could also be "two strikes" and "two no's".

Pluses of these tweaks:

She can't keep cancelling her time to reschedule during your vacations or special times with the kids. You can say No to her unreasonable makeup day announcements.

Minuses of these tweaks: it's getting REALLY detailed. She might have selective incompetence and "refuse" to understand the details. Increases communication back and forth between you two. She might suggest 3 "decoy" makeup days that you say No to, then wait for her 4th suggestion of makeup days to "really get what she wants".

...

I'm thinking I'm with GaGrl & FD on just not bothering with ROFR at all, especially if your youngest is 10 now, and you haven't even gone through the whole process yet.

REALLY proud of your assertiveness here:


Yes!  |iiii This is the right headspace to be in as you move forward to parallel parenting.

Consider, before you make it clear to her through your email posture/hints/whatever that you're totally against ROFR, whether she "has something you want" where you could "dangle" a modified ROFR to her, in exchange for what you want. A modified ROFR could be HEAVILY modified to ultimately be in your favor (or at least "not bad" to you), but could still have the title "ROFR", so she perceives it as getting what she wants or getting the upper hand.

IDK exactly the details, but it could hinge on age of youngest, so you wouldn't have to put up with it for very long. I.e., ROFR shall be in effect for parties' children until all children are at or over age 11. Maybe put in some documentation from your state about "at age 11, State considers children to be sufficiently capable of being home alone overnight, see Link and Website". Or, "ROFR shall apply to any of parties' children home alone overnight (i.e. passing the 12:00am hour) for 8 hours or more, unless one or more children of at least age 13 is also at the home."

Gotta go but just some ideas of how to leverage "something named" ROFR to your favor, IF it is effective leverage to get something you really want. If there isn't something she's holding on to that you really want (i.e. tiebreaker), then I'm with FD & GaGrl, don't bother.

 

Hey...while I've never lived the life of divorce, I've generally thought of ROFR as a good idea.  So...I'm scratching my head a bit about how this could go south.

I would suppose it would be all about the length of time that would trigger it and couldn't that be specifically written in.

So...I'm running to the store for 30 min and need to let kids stay at home or someone else watch them...well...that seems intrusive on both sides.

I'm going away for a weekend, well it would seem like that would be a good thing either way..to at least have the option.

Most likely I'm missing part of the story here...

Best,

FF

Not me!  lol  :(  lol

SamwizeGamgee wants his kids to have a nice 3 day weekend with his parents -- a fun "grandparents' time" -- while he is on a work trip. It's important that the kids see his parents and have quality time with them.

Some ROFR's would mean that it doesn't matter that he has planned care for the kids when he can't parent for 3 days... they go to Mom's, end of story. Or, at least, "he has to ask her first"... and if she's anything like my DH's kids' mom, it won't matter that SG has it all planned out with safe fun family. She will take the days to be in control, spite him, and keep the kids from having a good relationship with SG's parents.

So...why not write that in the agreement.

X number of times per year kids can be left with the following relatives.  Custodial parent will inform the other.

A couple times a year makes sense...half the weekends...probably not.

Just like cancellation policy...write in the detailed procedures.

Best,

FF

My ex, by the end of our 15 years together, hated everyone in my family.  Typical story around here.  When it came time for the settlement, she insisted my parents not care for our son, then about 6 years old.  Well, mom was in her 80s virtually house-bound and dad was even older and bedridden so that wouldn't have happened anyway.  However, I didn't want an order that sounded one-sided and even could have painted my parents wrongly.  I knew she seldom saw her mother in another state, her stepfather was dead and she hadn't seen her father since her teen years.  So the order stated that no grandparents would care for our son.  Quandry addressed.  She was satisfied.

We had a 4 hour ROFR for a couple years.  That was to prevent her from reclaiming son from school or daycare saying I was not yet there.  But as he got older it became problematic and somehow I got it dropped.  My big concern was what if he wanted a sleepover at his friends' home or a weekend trip with another family.  (For years his friends came here for overnights at my home.)  My ex was super hyper-vigilant, imagining abusers and abductors anywhere and everywhere, that only she could protect our son. :(

I'm a firm NO to ROFR.

Look at the long-term.  As you said, your kids are older and getting to the age where they can be left alone for the day with no issues.  Then there are sleepovers with friends and family - your ex could object to those.   And what if you remarry?

My (non-pd) ex and I coparent together very well.  Still, when I go on a business trip, it's my responsibility to figure out what to do with the kids.  Normally, they stay home with my H and stick to their routines.  Sometimes H and ex work it out to split the responsibilities.  (When ex goes on a business trip, he tends to just announce he can't pick them up and it's still my responsibility to figure it out.)

Once, we dropped the kids off with a friend for a few hours and went to see H's grandmother in the hospital.  She declined rapidly, and we were there until very late.  The friend offered to keep the kids overnight and take them to school in the morning. It would have been so much more stressful if I'd had to call my ex and negotiate a RFOR.

With H's uBPDex, we try very hard not to deviate from the schedule ever.  She can't handle the uncertainty. 

If you want to limit contact, I highly encourage you to write into the document that you have to communicate via a parenting app.

My ex is similar in this respect.

I would also say a strong NO to ROFR.  I've only heard horror stories.  exPD constantly harassing that stepMom or Grandparents can't watch the kids so the kids have to go to exPD, and then on the flip side exPD has other people watch the kids and never notifies the other parent.  You know how PD's operate, they act like they're above any agreement and don't need to follow it, but they will expect you to.  In a nutshell, it gives them too much ability to exert control over your parenting time and who cares for your kids.

I personally don't have it, and I'm so glad I don't.  Hadn't even heard of it until after my agreement was signed.  I can assure you that my ex tries to weave her way into my parenting time however she can, and if we had ROFR it would be an absolute mess.

If there is no way to get it out of the agreement completely, I would suggest phasing it out at some point.  That's what we did with a couple things I wasn't crazy about and it's worked fine.  Maybe put it in the agreement that ROFR expires when the youngest turns 10 or 12 or something.

Thank you all!
This is a great source of experience and tips.

Thus far, I am doing away with ROFR - which for her would be used not only as interference but a control tool.

It is almost top of her list for "must haves." So, I'm working on a presentation and context.  I don't think "if you are on my property I'm calling the police" is the right approach - but it wants to be said ;)  I'll try being practical.  For example, if we live farther apart, it would be a lot of travel time, kids want friend time, etc. Mainly, I don't mind offering STBX opportunities to have the kids on "my time" but, it has to be by choice when it's right, not by contract terms. It takes them a day to normalize after mom sometimes.

I am also crafting adding time and cancelling time phrases.  I have gotten along the suggested lines you provide.

Thank you all for expanding my view on this!

This is really good info to have.

Am I remembering correctly that you guys are doing mediation first?

What do you want that you think she might give you, in exchange for "something called ROFR"?

Do you think she would go for "something called ROFR" that is not actually her idea of ROFR?

What I'm getting at is:

You know she REALLLLYYYYY wants it, and you know why (control, micromanagement, etc). This is leverage for you. Can you "trade" for something mission-critical, like tiebreaker status, decision maker on medical/therapy, address for school purposes, etc? But... can it be NOT ROFR as she envisions it, but "ROFR" as you have put it together (that includes helpful wording like "until youngest child reaches age 11, then not in effect")?

...


Am I tracking here that you are working on presentation and context, to "convince" her that ROFR is not a good idea?

I second this. 

Just as I would strongly encourage you to refuse an unlimited ROFR I would push you to sign up for one with a couple carve outs.

1.  One or two times a month you can schedule someone else.  (friends, relatives...whatever)
2.  Age they age out of this.
3.  Also what triggers the ROFR.  15 minutes versus 2 hours is a big difference.

There can be power (for you) in giving her what she wants.

Best

FF

Can you really negotiate on things like this with a BPD? They feel entitled to everything.  It's not really mediation, it's more "limiting damage by hopefully making them understand that they cannot get it all"

And in a way, that could be where Samwize Gamgee gets some strength -- by deciding/knowing/accepting ahead of time that she will stonewall, object, argue, be unreasonable, etc... so he can prep ahead of time to be strong and have a stance of "it's this, or nothing and we progress to court".

Knowing ahead of time that she will be entitled, selfcentered, etc can help him "let go" of a sense that "mediation HAS to work, it just HAS to, so I guess I will bend and cave and let her erode away at anything that empowers me as a dad, because we HAVE to settle here." Instead, my hope for him is that while she might "imagine" that Samwize is desperate to resolve things in mediation, and therefore she has the upper hand... instead, he's NOT desperate, he DOESN'T need her to cooperate, and he's totally prepared to say "You don't want to trade? OK, you have decided that we are done here and moving to court. And I am VERY OK with that."

I'll add another idea as well.  In writing the ROFR, make it sound good for the pwBPD at the start.  Put the exceptions almost as an "oh by the way" at the end.

I would not explicitly discuss the "carve outs" verbally, perhaps "point them out" is a better term.

If all this gets shot down, then start discussing and quickly move the the "I'm ready to go to court" position.

Best,

FF

I agree with your statement, you can't really "negotiate" with a BPD.  They won't see reason and logic, and won't compromise.  However, it is possible to trade some things in order to get other things you feel are critical.  What I noticed with my exPDw is that she thinks in a small world, doesn't see the big picture, so I was able to get some things in the agreement that I think were most beneficial for the kids in the long run.

For instance, I allowed a clause to remain in the agreement that the kids would be allowed to participate in a specific activity.  (Mom is controlling, and won't allow the kids to try anything else which is what I have heartburn with)  I initially said no to that clause because I could easily picture Mom forcing the kids to remain in that activity all through high school against their wishes.  My attorney suggested to leave it in and cap it so it ends in a year.  That was no problem for me, because the kids were currently enjoying said activity.  In return, I was able to keep language in the agreement that I am in full control of their college education funds.  I felt the college funds were far more important than an activity, and saw the possibility of Mom exerting a lot of control over money when they went to college, so I felt it was a great trade off to save the kids some pain in the future.  As it stands currently, that clause about the activity has expired and it was no biggie to comply with it for awhile.

In that context, I think Samwize could craft something about ROFR for the agreement that he can live with for awhile, but also needs to make sure that he knows his "must haves" and get something back.  Just be careful with ROFR, and be aware of all the ways it could be abused.  Get language in there to try and get it to work for you, not against you.

These are all great comments. For background, mediation has been attempted and failed.  The mediator actually took me aside and recommended to file.  I took too long heeding that advice already.

I am working on my counter.  I truly can't accept ROFR - it's just going to be used to a negative effect. I have also tried to trim as many possible uses of "mutual consent" as well as the phrase "reasonable."  Because in my heart, after decades of experience, I know those phrases can be manipulated.

Now, if I can find ways to include the phrases, but make them ineffectual from a controlling point of view, that might pass.

I am tempted to think that the court's base language, coming from lots of times that parents aren't capable of getting along, might be the best fit after all.  I just hope that, as a dad especially, I get an equal presence in the parenting role.

As to adding phrases.

She wants a ROFR and you want phrases. 

Is it effective for her for everyone to be saying yes?

As in  "Of course I'm saying yes to ROFR and you will say yest to my request as well..right?"

Unfortunately many pwBPD want people to say yes to them and seem to relish saying no to what others want...regardless of what the ask is.

You know her best...what do you think?

Best,

FF

Samwize - I think you should file too, and get the court process moving.  What worked for me was filing, having a good lawyer, and the courts forcing an outcome.  I never tried a simple mediation process without an attorney representing me.  I knew from all the late night circular conversations that we would never accomplish anything.  It was the court setting dates and our attorneys advising us on what a judge would rule that moved it along for me.

Regarding phrases like "reasonable" - they can mean a lot, or not that much.  Just pay attention to when and how they can be manipulated by a PD.  My agreement reads that the kids will have phone access to the other parent "during reasonable hours and for reasonable duration".  That still gives me control when it's on my time.  I tell them they can call mom anytime, but if it's time for dinner, homework, or lights out, the call ends.  Honestly, just them knowing they have the freedom to call her anytime limits it, they rarely call her.  On the flip side, if your agreement says something like "parent can take the kids out to lunch a reasonable number of times each week" then you can bet every single day of your parenting time they will take your child out of school for a two hour lunch.  In that situation you have no control.  I don't have that language but my ex has found numerous ways to schedule doctor appointments on my time and turn them into three hour visits to the park, eating lunch at a restaurant, and then finally a doctor visit.  Like I wrote above, my ex weaves her way in even without ROFR in the agreement.

I found that the standard language really does work well, all things considered.  The courts have been there, done that a million times over - at least in my jurisdiction.  I've also found times where we were discussing something, I went back to review the court language and found that I was able to just make a decision without my ex's input.  Case in point - a recent discussion of health insurance for next year.  My options are cheap, her options are expensive.  I sent her my proposal that I keep the kids under my insurance and she agreed but countered with going to a more expensive plan.  I reviewed our parenting plan language and found that we only need to agree on which parent will provide coverage.  I politely replied that I will provide coverage for the kids and will choose the plan that I think fits best.

Be careful taking advice on agreement language from anyone who hasn't tried to "co-parent" with a PD before.  It's truly a different beast once you're on the other side.  PDs are slick, and find ways to get through language in order to maximize their time and manipulation with the kids.  Don't get too cute with language.  Please get yourself good representation with a smart, proactive lawyer who isn't afraid to go to bat for you, but who will also listen to compromise and look for the best possible solution.

Life is sweet on the other side, friend.  Just gotta get there.

Thank you all so much.
I think in my situation, I found a lawyer who is a good fit.  She is not prone to getting into emotional rows with folks.  That's good to know I've got that in my corner.  Like you say, I have been through enough late night circular arguments and interrogations to to know how important it is to stay above the emotional baiting.

I had a great experience a few weeks ago, where the STBX sat down with her laptop computer, drew me in, and was opening up with "what do you mean, by x? Do you really think y? and so on.

I said that interrogations are no longer an option, since we are getting a divorce anyway, and I just didn't engage.  Wow, that felt good.  I don't have to play in the mud.

As for legal language, I have been through my counter-offer many times. I often find new and interesting ways it could be used against me - or changed into something livable with a word or two different.  It's like defusing a warhead on the movies - don't cut the wrong wire first!

And the kicker is that the PD will always find a way to manipulate the agreement, but in ways you never thought of beforehand.  In my agreement it is crystal clear who will claim the kids on their taxes.  This year, my tax return got kicked back by the IRS because someone else had claimed the kids. IRS is still investigating.  My lawyer advised me that the IRS could decide in her favor, but no worries we can just sue her in County court.  Should work out, but still a royal pain. 

They will also switch tactics on you.  Funny timing on this thread because it hadn't happened before now. My exPDw just abused the phone call thing tonight and kept my oldest on the phone past bedtime.  D10 was distraught after the phone call about how she missed mom so much, and it was a total disaster trying to get the kids to bed.  I assume it was a guilt trip of some sort that the kids had to be with me over Thanksgiving instead of mom.

Examples like this are why I wrote what I wrote last night about taking advice from anyone who hasn't tried to co-parent with a PD after divorce.  You don't really get it until you've been there.  When you're married and living with them, you're the target.  Once you divorce and limit contact, the kids become the target and it's a completely different game.  It was very frustrating tonight to recognize that my ex was manipulating my daughter, and to think how pathetic it is that an adult would mess with a 10 year old's mind like that.  All you can do is support the kids, try to prevent the PD from affecting them too much, but in reality there's only so much you can do.  The PDs play their games and we try to mitigate the damage.  The sad truth is that no amount of language in an agreement will make everything work out perfectly.

Which is an example of why a crystal clear agreement with automatic consequences is critical.

Such as "X will claim kids on taxes.  If Y claims kids on taxes, y will pay back tax benefit and also any and all CPA, lawyer and legal fees incurred."   

That way there is no argument about making you whole.

Best,

FF

That's not how it works though.  The agreements lay out your rights as a parent, they say what you can and can't do.  Consequences for violating the agreement are already covered by the statutory laws in your jurisdiction, they're not spelled out in the agreement.

The point of what I'm saying is that no matter what is in the agreement the PD will constantly try to find a way around it, or just blatantly ignore the agreement as is the case with my tax situation.  You'll get surprised somehow, and then next month it will be something else.  The best thing you can do is have the big issues covered, and expect to still deal with a lot of small headaches.

Are automatic consequences not allowed to be in agreements in your state?

Best,

FF

In our case, my fiancé' is still the target, he's just using the children as a conduit to strike at her.  His manipulations are impacting the children.  For a school report, her son was asked to described things at home that make him happy.  He did not put anything in the report about what makes him happy at his mom's house.  Only things at his dad's house.  When asked why, he said his dad would read the report and yell at him for anything that made him happy at our house.  The daughter states her dad askes her if she upset her mom during the time at our house.  If she says she had a good time, she gets scolded.  Sad.  CoMo

There's no point in adding consequences even if they are allowed, they're already covered by laws that are in place.  Family courts aren't interested in reinventing the wheel.  That's why you don't see agreements that disallow abandoning the kids at a park, drowning them in the bathtub, or driving without proper child seats.  It's already covered elsewhere.

It wouldn't matter anyways.  When the PD violates the orders, they're rarely caught or punished unless it's glaringly obvious.  Different versions of reality are claimed by the PD, their lawyer obfuscates the issue and engages in doublespeak, and clouds the whole thing.  My ex has done things that would look very bad for her if the courts saw the reality, but by the time the lawyers argue it out her side has confused everything so much there are no repercussions.  At a certain point you realize it's no longer worth $300/hr to come away with little consequences for the other side, so you learn to let some things go. 

Speaking to my tax example, I'm certain if she gets caught she will just claim her accountant made a mistake and file an amended return.  No consequences for her, money spent on lawyers for me.  If I had spent more time and money to put severe consequences on that behavior, she would have just violated the court orders a different way.  So like I said, make sure the big issues are covered and expect some unexpected headaches elsewhere.  We could pontificate all day on the perfect agreement language, but in the end you'd just spend a fortune on legal fees and still have to deal with a PD and the problems they cause.

Hey...I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. 

My understanding of many other members stories that were "successful" or "more successful" in their divorces is that they put something that mattered in the decree and also a time that it was supposed to be done and also a consequence if it did not happen.

To me, it sounds like this might be helpful for you in this situation.  Especially going forward.  Perhaps this year you let it slide in exchange for a modification that says you get it in the future and if it doesn't happen all your fees get covered.

The fee part is critical because otherwise you have to worry about the math you presented..spending big lawyer money to chase small returns.

Best,

FF

While what some states allow or not may vary, one of the reasons to include consequences if at all possible is to reduce the possibility that if a violation is taken back to court that the judge will have before him/her on paper precisely what the consequences should be.  If none were there, then the judge would be more likely to use his/her discretion.  Which, without prior guidance on paper, it might be, "I'll let this go this time but next time you obey the order."  Essentially a mere finger wagging. :(  Domestic court can often default to letting bygones be bygones which only enables more boundary pushing by an acting-out disordered person.

As LnL sometimes phases it, "You want to make it less likely the ex will keep getting permitted more bites of the apple."

Agreed, that's exactly my point.  Cover the stuff that matters and don't mind-screw yourself and think you have to cover every unseen scenario in the future.  The PD will find a way around the language somehow...sometimes it's a big deal and sometimes it isn't.

Think of it as another strategy.  Get out quick, fast, and cheap.  Then budget it in that you'll have to spend $1k every so often to keep them in check, it's easier to do that once your finances are under your control.

I agree with this, it could be useful to have consequences in the agreement for the big issues you see coming.  But, I would add a big IF to that.  In my case, my ex is so slick at playing behind the scenes and maintaining plausible deniability that it's almost impossible to bring evidence to court.  She's been playing a ton of games with the kids, and with me, but always seems to have a reason for it that doesn't point the finger at her.  So, my viewpoint is IF you could actually prove that the other party did something that violated the agreement then having consequences in the agreement would be worthwhile.

This is the reason why I'm cautioning Samwize (and others) to not get too cute about language.  Cover the big issues that you know about.  Expect the unexpected, and realize you'll likely spend more money on things you didn't see coming.  Don't spend $100k now on the perfect agreement that could cost you $50k over the long run.

defogging has a good point, especially for the parenting and custodial issues.  So much of that is hard to clearly categorize as either good or bad, or how good or how bad.

I'm thinking consequences are easier to specify on the financial impact issues.  For example, selling the house, or handling issues for one spouse to exit the house and the other to assume ownership and financing.  Consequences are appropriate for what to do when an ex...

...fails to timely vacate the residence
...fails to timely sign realtor paperwork
...fails to timely sign quitclaim deed or sale papers
...fails to timely obtain loan or mortgage
...fails to timely {whatever}

Another approach can work if you will end up owing the other $$$ when the marital assets/debts are split.  You can specify that a certain substantial financial amount will be held in escrow with your lawyer that is released only after compliance with the terms of the settlement.  Holding that sum as Leverage for compliance works much better than an official court order (which many courts are reluctant to enforce, at least no quickly).  Our ex-spouses may be disordered but most of them know the value of currency whatever nation we live in.

CoMo, that sucks that those kids are dealing with that.  Sounds like a terrible situation for them.  I actually think in your case that the kids are now the target.  Not the target of blame, but the target of manipulation.  PDs have no sense of self and try to enmesh with someone else to feel whole.  I won't try to explain in depth because I won't get it quite right, but I think if you search those terms you will find some very valuable reading.

What you describe is very similar to what is happening with my daughter.  I read between the lines of what D10 says to me and I see her being turned against me.  Luckily, I've retained a great relationship with my daughter (but I'm not saying that your fiancé doesn't have a great relationship with her kids) and can see that the behavior coming from mom isn't really against me, it's just a terribly unhealthy way for mom to bond with her daughter.  Mom needs to be seen as the best, loved the most, and it doesn't matter how it affects other people.

It sucks, big time, when you see how the kids are being manipulated to choose a favorite.  I think the best thing you can do (and all you can do) is teach the kids to think for themselves, be independent, give them some free space to just be themselves, and always be there to support them.

OK...my curiosity is getting the better of me.

Can you give an example or two?

I would certainly agree that with custody and turnovers that you wouldn't want to "nitpick" and be going to court or trying to enforce an agreement  when the issues is a couple of days here and there.

That being said, if the parenting time per the agreement is 50/50 and the actual time is 25/75 (for plausibly deniable reasons..to a PD that is), an automatic "make up time" clause is likely going to be helpful.  

Plus, perhaps the agreement actually stipulates how time will be counted (leave it up to a pd to come up with "alternate counting rules"...oh..."that doesn't count because...")

Perhaps a larger point I saw in your post to highlight and agree with.

Get finances in order and continue to budget that "maintenance" of the divorce will periodically cost you.

Oh...and I had another thought.  defogging doesn't seem especially crushed by a person with a pd acting like a person with a pd.  Perhaps having some areas where they can believe they are "sticking it to you" and having victories is a useful thing, especially if it really doesn't bother you.

Best,

FF

Here are some - My ex's usual tactic is what I call "selective miscommunication".  She keeps me in the dark on things concerning the kids, then I look like a fool because I didn't know appointments changed, an event got canceled, etc.  She tells the kids different things than she tells me, usually to paint herself as a victim or as the more caring parent.  She gets the kids excited about activities that would be during my parenting time, offers to assist with driving them, then is unreliable about actually doing that, so I have to pull the kids out early or cancel the activity altogether and they get mad at me.  She scheduled a birthday party at her house, told me I wasn't allowed to come when I asked about it, and told my daughter that I didn't want to come.  She fired a therapist, denied it, then kept telling the therapist and me/her lawyer different stories.  Eventually the therapist said she couldn't continue working with us if both parents weren't on the same page.  Lots of fun stuff  lol, plenty of PA tactics, all in violation of the standard language in our parenting plan, yet it's nearly impossible to prove to the courts.

You mentioned quite a bit about parenting time and withholding the kids, thankfully that hasn't been an issue since we've had a written agreement.  I think withholding the kids is something that can be more easily proven through documentation, and is why my ex hasn't tried it.  My ex is skilled at working behind the scenes so she won't get busted doing something egregious.  I think the tax thing happened because she figured she could pin it on her accountant if I called her out on it.  She's very concerned about public image, so she tries to make arrangements through verbal conversation (which I don't allow) or pick her battles where people won't really see it.


I don't take any of it personally anymore, I know it's her rudimentary self defense mechanisms that make her act this way.  I feel sorry for her more than anything, because from the outside I now see how she drives people away and can't stop doing it.   I've accepted the reality that I'm going to have to react to drama making from time to time, and I limit it by having very little contact with her.  I only allow communication in writing, and if she wants to start a fight I utilize the agreement to put a quick stop to it.  Plus, the big items that would really affect the kids or cost me a lot of money are well covered in the agreement.

That's good insight about letting them have little victories.  My attorney advised me of that during the divorce.  She had a few big losses early on, and he advised me to let one particular thing go so she could have a small victory.  It certainly helped calm things down.  I still utilize that tactic and weigh decisions based on what I want her to win, so she can feel like she's in control of some things, when in reality it can be an issue that I don't give a hoot about.

One more thought on this.  Another very useful tool in the toolbox is to not interfere with your ex's public image so they remain happy with the current situation.  I've found that if I let some things go to help her to look like a great parent then she is more stable and less likely to want to make wholesale changes. 

I think this is something us Non-PDs get caught up in sometimes - wanting vindication by proving your ex wrong.  It's certainly justifiable, and I've been through a lot of those situations where I had to listen to her tell people about the great things she did while I knew that it was actually me that made it happen.  It used to make me mad, but I've learned to just let her do it because it is best for the kids.  In the past when I called her out, she usually reacted by wanting to change the situation - move, get new schools, new job, etc.  I don't want the kids to go through that anymore so I just let my ex paint the image that she is an awesome parent to her kids.

Excellent point, you were able to express it more clearly than I did.  Much easier to add consequences to items that have an objective goal, like a date or a dollar amount.  On items related to parenting it's much more difficult to prove something was done wrong, so I wouldn't recommend putting a ton of effort into consequences around that, or on anything that is clearly covered by statutory law.

So...after our long digression from the ROFR issue (sorry SG!), I think if SG's stbx is feeling very strongly about that he should think about some parameters around ROFR that he can easily live with.  Maybe add some language that would make it a non-factor for you - number of times per month for babysitters/relatives to watch the kids, it's not applicable in a last minute situation, consequences if parent chooses a babysitter and doesn't notify other parent, kids age out of it at a certain point, etc.  Could be an opportunity for her to have a victory while the language in the agreement makes it a moot point for you.  Then, while you're working on that victory for her, add in something else that seems minor but is important to you.

I've had some success in doing this in my home.  Sort of a version of "the things that matter...should matter BIGTIME, for all the rest...let it go...COMPLETELY..."

Example:  My wife somehow believes that religion fixes everything.  If you "just" believe..."just" this.."just" that...the magic of whitewash comes out and it never happened and you can ride off into happily ever after. 

Except she does it right...everyone else "doesn't believe" and if they would "just" listen to her, the world would be so much better.

Luckily I'm the man..the patriarch and have "the final say". 

So I set things up so that if my wife chooses these certain things she looks like a supermom and if she goes down the path that she wants...she is the one that ends up getting publicly shamed.

As in..a couple of years ago one of my younger teens and a friend sipped some booze (wine I think).  My wife had the family arranged in a room like an audience, the hapless teen was up on the "witness stand" in front of them and I was the last one brought in (having no idea what was going on).

My wife starts shaming the kid, telling everyone what a horrible sinner the kid is...this is what happens when you are a bad person...  I stood up an ended it, used some appropriate scripture and declared that nothing like this would EVER happen again in our family. 

My wife ran from the room, I finished up the public lesson and then over next couple days followed up with each kid.

Ugg...horrid stuff.   When she does "normal" or "kind" things I'm pretty over the top on public praise.  So..slowly over time those things seem more common and "religious" things have decreased. 


Best,

FF

 

Ahh Defogger, that makes sense.  Yes, they are the target.  Thanks.



Agree.  One of the theme's my fiancé has established is she wants to create a home environment where her children can be themselves and not live in a pressure cooker.  You're advice is spot on.  Thank you.  CoMo

Pressure cooker is an accurate description of what my kids have at the other house too.  It seems they always have to be "performing" whether it's loving Mom the most, or being "the best" at whatever activity they are participating in.  It's sad to watch.

Giving the kids a home where they can be themselves is probably the best thing I've ever done for them.  They have come so far in a short time.  They're happier, feel free to speak their opinion, understand how to compromise with each other, and their demeanor is more relaxed than ever before.  For the first time I can finally see what awesome kids they are underneath all the pressures they face.  Even if nothing else good had come out of the divorce it would have been worth this alone.  Kudos to you and your fiancé for recognizing this dynamic and taking steps to help them out.