Mom makes it personal -- no compromise offered

[kells76]

Backstory: mediation, new PP signed by both Mom & DH, SD10 flips out on first day of new PP & won't go w/ DH, Mom emails DH that she "can't believe DH would suggest that anyone would get in trouble" about not following PP, DH files new suit ~3 weeks after PP signed asking for 50/50.

This catalyzes mediation round 2, DH & Mom come up w/ plan agreed on in mediation, DH signs & Mom doesn't. Wait a month, Mom sends complain-y response about how she's fine with getting PT coord, but shouldn't have to pay for it. Wants DH to pay 1/2 counseling (which was in mediation round 2 agreement, which Mom didn't sign, remember), doesn't want CS reduced, thinks DH should "work at his potential". (Mom doesn't have a job.)

DH responds with offer to pay 1/2 counseling for kids including retroactive, will pay all schooling expenses for kids at Current School (where he was a teacher last year but not this year, and where Mom pulled them out last year and reenrolled them this year, sigh, long story), will pay ALL of PT coordinator, added some to CS offer. So, Mom would only be out 26% of what she has been getting from DH, if school $ are included. Plus, kids' overnights w/ DH are increased according to last 2 mediation PPs, and he is making less than he was 5 years ago when original PP was made.

Mom sent a zinger last night. All about how the kids shouldn't suffer just because DH needed to "find himself" by working other jobs, how DH filed a fraudulent tax return 5 years ago, how Mom should be claiming kids EVERY year in taxes, and that DH was fired from a managerial job for sexual harassment. Oh, and basically a GFY on the PT coord -- "if DH wants to pay for one, that's his business, Mom isn't interested".

OK. So.

I know this shouldn't rattle me, but it does. It's that nagging doubt of "I know that this stuff isn't really true", but Mom does a good job of taking a sliver of truth and turning it into a believable lie. Can you guys help me get some perspective on all this? Because it's that "well, some stuff is sort of partly true" feeling that is really hard right now. Let me explain some of what Mom is alleging.

-":)H is just trying to find himself by working other jobs" and ":)H was fired for sexual harassment": DH managed a couple of Famous Stores here for about 4 years and in Other City for a few years before that. Original CS was based on that income. A couple years ago, his manager (female) wanted him to turn around a failing Famous Store, so asked him if he'd like to transfer. He did (and brought another employee along), and it was super dysfunctional, and a female employee who didn't like being called out on stuff made an anonymous call to the ethics line. DH had made a joke around her that could be interpreted as offensive. DH was investigated and basically where it ended was OK, this is going on your record, but we're not firing you. DH's manager totally had his back and they decided that it'd be best if he quit.

So, he was suddenly out of work, by quitting (not being fired), for an allegation of harassment. He's been working whatever he could find since then in order to pay CS, with an eye towards jobs that'd let him spend more time with the kids. Hence taking the teaching job at the kids' school last year... .when Mom pulled them out. He's currently learning a line of work that'll let him make more than as Famous Store manager, with more flexible hours. But it starts at low $.

Does Mom have anything here? DH has that allegation on his (what I assumed was private?) record from a few years ago. Is that even relevant to a CS case? A PT case? Will a judge see that as Mom flinging mud? Is the fact that Mom alleges that he was fired, when in fact he quit, showing that Mom is a less credible person? DH's former manager & one employee, both female, would have his back on the harassment allegation -- that it was retaliatory but based on a joke he did tell.

-":)H filed a fraudulent tax return in year 20XX": Mom says that DH filed a fraudulent tax return either "in" or "for" year 20XX. If Mom means "in" year 20XX, that would be "for" the previous year, correct? So she's saying that DH says he lived with the kids that year. Which he did, that was the year before they separated/divorced. But those taxes would've been filed in the NEXT year. I think she is trying to say that he says he lived with the kids DURING the year they separated/divorced? But either way, in the original PP that they both signed, they agreed that DH could claim the kids EVERY year. DH has been alternating claim years with Mom since then. Mom has signed the IRS permission paperwork in the years when DH claims them, as DH is not primary parent on paper.

Does Mom have anything here? If she signed an agreement, signed off on by a judge, that DH could claim the kids every year, and then she signed the permission forms every other year, she should not be having a problem with this, right? Does local or federal law about claiming kids supercede a signed PP? Even if it does, does the fact that Mom went along with it mean anything?

-"If DH wants a PT coord, that's his business, I'm not interested": How does this look for Mom? DH is offering to pay for all of it. Can the case be made that DH is actually looking out for the kids' best interests by trying to get a neutral 3rd party involved, and that Mom is not coparenting well by not offering to share costs and saying she doesn't want one? Does it matter that in the last response, Mom said she was "fine with it" and made it a "too expensive" issue?

This is a lot, so thanks for wading through it with me/us. DH is really worried that Mom will try to bring the kids to court and get them in front of the judge. I told him that no judge would go for that and it'd say more about Mom than about DH. Do you guys think that's true? No judge will be fooled if Mom brings in an 8 year old and 10 year old, right? I guess I want to be able to reassure DH even more that I'm not the only one saying that's total BS and won't be tolerated.

I'm worried Mom will try to go down the sexual harassment rabbit hole, and spin it as "Well, I never said he was a bad person, but you should know that other people said X". I don't want DH to go on the defensive about that, because it'd distract from actually getting stuff done that is best for the kids. But can he do that -- can his L just be like "These allegations are so defaming that my client won't even respond"?

Running out of characters -- will add more.

[kells76]

Oh, yeah, also Mom alleges that the kids haven't spent more than 26 nights/year with DH since whenever.

(A) That isn't true, every year there was at least one if not more overnight for each kid, but will a judge see this as nit picky -- "Well, 26, 27, it doesn't really matter"? But to me, it does, because it shows that Mom can't even be accurate in her allegations. I just don't know if anyone else will see it that way. Is it worth pointing out with calendars/diaries that actually, Mom made an untrue allegation?

(B) What happened in the past is irrelevant for a CURRENT CS calculation based on the most recent # of overnights in the most recent PP, right? So however many ON's the kids did or did not spend with DH BEFORE the latest PP, it's the newest one that should be used for calculations? So is Mom's point pertinent to a CS calculation in some way that I am not seeing?

Trial in one week. If I'm getting bogged down in irrelevant stuff, let me know. Thanks for fielding all these worries.

[bravhart1]

First let me say, ugh. Sorry you are going through this.

To me it sounds like BPDm is grabbing at every thread she can pull on to see if anything is there. Our BPDm did/ does this all the time. It's a learned skill I'm sorry to say, but you will begin to ignore her making mountains out of molehills.

The judge does not care how, when or why you file your taxes. It has NOTHING to do with how good a dad he is. It does show she has nothing else. She's a bully for sure.

The job stuff, eh? I doubt if they care about that either. If anyone had filed criminal charges they might want some more info, but what you've discribed sounds minor and petty. I see it as though it makes her look bad for throwing it out there as a threat to blackmail him with to get her way. I would document it as such and bring it to light as her bullying tactics.

You do need to get a big picture perspective. She's a bully who is money grubbing. She will therefore in turn call you and DH bullies, who are only interested in keeping all your money. She will try to get you on the defense, which will keep you off the offense. And she has a heck of a lot more bad parenting on her side than you do.
NO amount of trying to "work" with her will work. Take her and her weak ass accusations to court and let the judge see what you are dealing with.

[kells76]

Thanks bravhart. I think I sort of knew that she was just doing that -- grabbing at whatever she could to see what would stick. But there was still that part of me that wanted to think through each allegation to ponder whether it was credible -- that "what if it's actually true somehow" worry.

That is also helpful to remember that she is probably projecting. So when she says that DH is "finding himself" and not working up to his potential, and involved in harassment and all that jazz, she is really saying about herself (reversing everything she said): "I am still finding myself after the divorce and I'm not working up to my potential. The kids shouldn't have to suffer because of my choices. I think about sexual harassment a lot and have probably filed a fraudulent tax return. I want this to be a money trial but if we go to court I will probably get a lot less."

That's more clear now 

All this being said... .settlement was reached. L & DH talked about what it was DH ACTUALLY wanted -- the counseling, PT coordinator, more time with kids, detailed PP. And that is what he got. It was clear Mom planned to fight dirty to keep the $ and that would hurt the kids the most. DH is a good man. He was basically like "Screw the money, she can have whatever $ she wants." I know that on the one hand that isn't checking her entitlement, but on the other hand we now have a PT coord who can testify in court, plus long term counselor for the kids who sees that there's some issues with Mom, plus detailed PP. Oh yeah, and integrity. I think I lost what little respect for Mom I had left when I saw her last response. If that's who she wants to be, fine, but she can't be that and then blame DH for being that. So I guess the other way of looking at this is that DH did a good job of disengaging from her games. She wanted to fight dirty and he was just like Fine, whatever, I'm done.

Oh, and there was something Mom "really" wanted in her last response, something she thought she deserved from DH. Guess who didn't read the final paperwork before signing to see that it wasn't in there? (Hint: Rhymes with Mom)

This has sucked a lot and been really hard. But now we have a good L in case anything else happens, plus counselor, plus PT coordinator. Cross your fingers for us. I have this strange feeling that Mom won't be able to follow the PP at some point in the future... .

[livednlearned]

Whoo, that's a ride and a half. Sorry you had to go through that. The worry and dread is the worst 

And so glad your DH got what he wanted. Hold that feeling tight and don't let it go -- it is a reminder that all the zingers in the world just bounced off and went nowhere. Court sees the big picture and that's gold.

More on the psychological side, I know what you mean about the "partly true" part of these accusations. Remember that these allegations and dirty laundry are coming from someone disordered, the intent is to harm, not to help you be a better person  Every time she gets you to focus one inch off the ground, it takes the focus off what you want to be doing.

What it does tell you is that the kids are hearing it. "When mom says that, how do you feel about it?" is the most powerful thing you can say. Mom doesn't have the emotional skills to care how it affects the kids, and there is no child who feels good hearing the other parent maligned. So when you focus on how she feels (instead of defending the accusation), it adds a tiny pebble to the container of truth she is going to need in her life. Because the truth is, she feels terrible when her mom says mean and nasty things about dad.

And like you said, you know that mom won't comply with the parenting plan    and also with her end of the counseling. Her reality testing is broken, she sees things from a very distorted and disordered point of view. Anything that the kids do without her blessing or consent is going to feel like a personal threat and a loss of control. It's heart breaking that our kids have to go through this

[DreamGirl]

Now you can take a deep breath.

Whew.  

In my experience, the cooler heads always rise to the top.  Exaggerations in court filings are pretty standard - my husband's ex-wife had plenty of her own too. His attorney was excellent in returning with cool, calm responses. And just because she says something, doesn't make it true.