would you have the kiddos testify to his porn addiction

[paxfamilia]

or just stick with the emotional abuse, the physical bullying, and the stalking after they refused contact with their dad?

If you have followed my story on other posts, we have a hearing on 7/25 for relocation, and the kids (13 and 16 year old girls) get to testify.  Child abuse was called by me, they found no evidence to arrest (no marks, bruises, of course kids didn't tell me for a month), but report notes several instances of physical bullying to both kids by dad, and the subsequent stalking of youngest 3 times.  (I'm sure he did not do it to the oldest, because he already knew full well that the oldest pretty much hated him.  Thought he could scare the youngest back under his control I guess.  Makes no sense to me, but then I'm not an Axis II, cluster B mess.)

The girls and their friend (17), who also gets to testify, have seen several instances of the dad lying in his bed with door open, or on sofa, fully clothed, with one hand down front of his pants, and the laptop sitting on him and... .   They are fully convinced he is masturbating to porn, and have reported viruses getting on the computers (which I hear happens a lot with accessing porn) and a pop up of such happening one time.  They are right.  He had a raging porn habit while we were together.  I even gave the original custody evaluator DVDs he burned which included gang rape, and even had his own handwriting on it, but the custody evaluator refused to look at it, said he wouldn't look at porn, even though I told him it was not just any porn, but a look into the mind of criminal sexual assault.  (His grandfather, only knew after I married him, was convicted of aggravated rape.)

Should the kids be asked questions about this, or should we just stick to the detriment of the emotional abuse, physical bullying, and stalking?  We can refer to the old custody evaluation report which states in a few places that the father has a porn addiction, and he even admits it.  However, opposing counsel will scream "res adjudicata" (already ruled on, was before the final divorce decree).

Relocation statutes in our state address things like substitute visitation, the quality of the relationship between the kids and the staying behind parents, etc., but also refers back to the statutes regarding custody placement in the first place, and one of those factors is the moral fitness of the parents. 

I don't know if mentioning this stuff will make the kids sound petty, or if the judge will get pissed at the dad for not even having the decency to hide his raunchiness from his kids.  It shows how narcissitic he is, that he thinks his kids are so little/stupid that they don't have a clue what he is doing. They are 13 and 16, can biologically make their own families, and have every clue about the whole realm of human sexuality.  Their dad creeps them out, their friend calls him "a perv". 

Bring it up, leave it out?

[catnap]

Perhaps a question to the kids. . ."Is there anything else about your father that you are uncomfortable with?"  This gives them the option of mentioning the porn, without your attorney specifically asking about it. 

I have been following your story and pulling for the Judge to grant your re-location request.

[Matt]

The key here may be what you mean by "testify".

Where I live, judges frown on asking the kids to testify in court.  As our trial approached, my kids were 10 and 11, and my stepkids 18 and 29;  my lawyer advised me strongly not to plan on calling any of them, even the adults.  She said judges view it as abusive of the kids, and would see me as putting my interests ahead of theirs;  a loving parent wouldn't put even an adult child through that.

But if by "testify" you mean talk with a professional third party, like a guardian ad litem or court-appointed psychologist, that's different.  I filed a motion to have a Custody Evaluator appointed - a Ph.D. psychologist who interviewed all the kids in settings he viewed as appropriate.

It can't be a matter of getting the kids to testify against the other parent.  It has to be giving the kids a chance to talk openly with a professional, who can handle the information appropriately, and act on it based on what is in the kids' best interests.  If you take that approach - maybe the process works different where you live - I think the court will see it positiively.  Your aim is to give the kids a voice, and get all the important information out in the open, so the court can make a wise decision.

The other side of it, of course, is your own testimony.  You can not only say that when you were together you saw him looking at a lot of porn, but that the kids have told you he seems to be into it now too.  Make sure not to go too far - you can't say, "The kids say he looks at it now too" - you have to say it like you said it here on this thread - they saw what they saw and you put two and two together and got four.

Also... . remember that looking at porn is very common among adult men, and if it's in moderation the court may not view it as a big deal.  You can describe how often it was when you were together, and maybe your lawyer can help you judge whether the court is likely to view that as extreme.  If there is a professional involved, like a Custody Evaluator, she probably knows how to handle this issue - whether to treat it as a problem or as something the kids should learn about so it won't be hurtful to them.

[paxfamilia]

The family court judge has already made his own ruling that he wants to hear the kids, but that the attorneys will have to write down their questions and cannot question or cross-question the kids.  The judge will ask in front of only attorneys and court reporter.  He will treat their 17 year old friend the same way.

The original civil court judge (restraining order cases) ruled that kids could testify because their therapist testified kids were mature enough, wanted to do so, and it wouldn't be detrimental as long as parents were not in the room.

So, the kids can testify at any hearing in these matters from now on, as long as they come to court on their own (no parent gives them a ride).

[paxfamilia]

It's not so much the porn that is bothersome, but that he does this in the living room with his feet on the coffee table, his laptop on his legs and his hand down his pants.

[Matt]

So... . how do you see this playing out, if you did put the porn issue on the table?

How would you phrase the question(s) which the judge would ask?

Would the kids be surprised, or prepared for that issue to come up?

How do you think the kids would deal with being asked about it in court, in front of people they don't know?

Would both parents later see their answers, and would they understand that when they testify?

If your attorney asked the questions, she might go step-by-step, to let the kids tell what they told you:

* Have you seen your father when you thought he was looking at pornography?

* Can you describe that?

* Did you see him with his laptop on his lap in the living room, when you thought he was looking at pornography?

* Where were his hands?

* What did you think about that at the time?

* What do you think about that now?

* Have you discussed that with him?  Why not?

But I don't know if the judge would do it that way.  He might want just one or two questions to ask, which might make it harder for the kids to talk about it... .

"Have you seen your father looking at pornography?"

"Um, I'm not sure."

[paxfamilia]

You should 'bar up' and represent some of us PD victims in court.  Very smart you are. Thanks for all the detail to consider, Matt.

[Matt]

You should 'bar up' and represent some of us PD victims in court.  Very smart you are. Thanks for all the detail to consider, Matt.

Thanks but then I'd be accountable.  This way I can say anything and it's up to you to decide what's best!

I think this community works best when we use it to exchange information and brainstorm approaches - "Here's what worked for me" or "Maybe you could consider... . ".

But we have to remember that most of us aren't attorneys, and nobody here can give legal advice.  And things are very different from place to place and case to case.  So buyer beware!

[DreamGirl]

I like what Matt said about testifying as to what made them uncomfortable - the sitting on the couch with a hand down his pants - not so much naming what they/you think it is (an addiction to porn).

A pwBPD tends to struggle in appropriate boundaries. So I believe reporting the actions (touching himself) and the feelings surrounding the actions (highly uncomfortable/creeped out) rather then our own diagnosis of the actions (he's a pervert who was probably mastrubating) helps the third party assess the situation objectively on their own terms - which is what they are required to do.

Did your attorney have an opinion about this?

[VeryFree]

My 2 cts:

- Stick to the facts: sitting on the sofa with a laptop, one hand down his pants. Yes? And? I find myself sometimes reading a book, or watching tv with one hand behind my belt (Al Bundy-look), but that doesn't mean I'm masturbating in public or even worse: am a porn-addict.

- Don't use kids to fullfill your own agenda: shortterm things will work out okay, but in the long run, when they get older, they will possibly hate you for that.

- Be business, not emotion.

[Matt]

My 2 cts:

- Stick to the facts: sitting on the sofa with a laptop, one hand down his pants. Yes? And? I find myself sometimes reading a book, or watching tv with one hand behind my belt (Al Bundy-look), but that doesn't mean I'm masturbating in public or even worse: am a porn-addict.

- Don't use kids to fullfill your own agenda: shortterm things will work out okay, but in the long run, when they get older, they will possibly hate you for that.

- Be business, not emotion.

Yup, excellent thoughts.

The other thing I'm thinking here is that - reflecting back on my case - again and again, I found myself as the "problem-solver".  My attorney, and the other party's attorney, and ultimately the judge too, clearly were looking to me, to put forward a positive solution - not "I win you lose" but "OK, this has been a good discussion and I think I understand what everyone is saying, so how about if we do this... . ".

It was surprising but a very clear dynamic a number of times.  This also occured with two mediators involved - at key points, when everything had been said, they looked to me for a solution that would be OK for both parties.

Be ready for this, and don't be shy.  You've made your points strongly and clearly, and you've heard what the other side has said, and gleaned from it any valid points - even if you have to stretch a little to find something valid among the baloney... .