FT Parents' Session Round 2

[mama-wolf]

We had our second parents' session last Thursday in family therapy.  I did get triggered a couple of times, but can at least say it wasn't as bad as the first one.

The focus was primarily on the concerns I expressed about uBPDxw's new fiancé and her rapid incorporation into S9's life.
 uBPDxw said she was "confused" why I haven't met Fiancé, and why I'm raising concerns about her when I chose not to do that.  When the FT asked if she suggested such a meeting, uBPDxw described how she suggested it in March, how I put it off until after the hearing in May because of everything going on with family therapy and the PC, and then after she sent Fiancé's email address in June, I responded that we wouldn't be meeting. 

FT asked if that was my recollection, and I got upset pointing out that all of that was happening while my mom had just been hospitalized, determined to be terminally ill, remained hospitalized for over two months and died.  uBPDxw knew all of this (and FT was fully aware of it when she asked the question) but in uBPDxw's description of the situation she didn't even once mention the situation with my mom.  I also described the exchange with Fiancé once I did reach out, and how her curt and passive aggressive response told me all I needed to know.  How I still tried to arrange a meeting even after that, but ruminated over it for four solid hours, then came to the ultimate conclusion that our meeting would not accomplish anything and decided to decline.

uBPDxw tried to press me to specify exactly what my concerns were about Fiancé and how she could address them (like providing her driving record if I was worried about that), and said otherwise she felt like her relationship was being micromanaged.  She was clearly ready to argue point/counter-point on every little detail, and I was not about to fall into that trap.  I said I am more concerned at the overall pace of the relationship for S9, and giving him time to adjust, especially since he has started showing signs of increasing anxiety--including chewing his clothes/blankets again, and two anxiety attacks in the past two weeks. 

FT did speak up and say that if she were meeting with uBPDxw individually, she would have advised to slow down and make a plan to start incorporating parental-type activities with Fiancé gradually, but said she recognized the ship has sailed already in some ways.   She said the suggestion to slow down would have been mostly about S9, but also with her relationship in general (while also recognizing uBPDxw is an adult and will make her own decisions about that). 

What I really appreciated was how FT articulated that adult relationships move at a different pace than relationships for kids, and how they don't have all the context etc. to adjust as quickly as adults do.  And how they might say they're OK with something or even eager about it (as uBPDxw claimed S9 has done), and then have a really hard time walking that back if they find they're actually uncomfortable.  Not sure what--if anything--uBPDxw will do with this, but at least it has been spoken aloud.  And the FT did send a follow-up status update summarizing our discussion, with specific reference to her "recommendation that right now S9 spend time in the presence of Fiancé and uBPDxw jointly rather than designated alone time between S9 and Fiancé.

Aside from that topic, there was a point where uBPDxw claimed I just want to keep D13 to myself and that I have kept D13 from having a relationship with her.  When asked by the FT if she thinks that is the only reason why their relationship is where it is, uBPDxw said she takes responsibility for her behavior and really wants the opportunity to apologize to D13, but that I am standing in the way of that.  Given my overall state of mind, it provoked me into a very pointed statement that I don't have the authority or ability to just "keep D13 to myself" (which I was able to articulate thanks to my T mentioning it in a prior session). And when the FT asked uBPDxw if she really believes I want to be a single parent--and here I know the FT is fully aware of what a strain that has been for me--the response was "absolutely yes--mw was raised that way, and that's how she wants to raise D13."  And she also included the jab about how apparently she's a "good enough parent for S9, but not D13."

I told the FT that uBPDxw had been in a 10-aday IOP program in late August of 2019, and how my kids continued to deteriorate after that.  That prompted an outburst from uBPDxw claiming that I only gave her one week after that IOP before filing for the change, which I knew was not correct (I later went back to my notes from that time, and confirmed I filed on 11/1, a full two months later).  Immediately after the IOP I had decided to hold off on filing because things had seemed slightly better in early September.  But from late September through October my kids' mental health had continued to deteriorate.  I also reviewed in my notes the multiple discussions I had with the prior FT about ways to try to improve the situation that did not involve filing for a custody change...but even the FT at that time said she didn't think those options would be enough motivation for uBPDxw to make a lasting change.

I stressed in the session that the current arrangement has been based on the input of several clinical professionals along the way.  I explained to FT (again) that I did file for full custody of both kids, that it was based on signs of deteriorating mental health for both of them.  I described how we all got on a call...FT at the time, uBPDxw, me, and both of our attorneys.  How based on the FT's recommendations to relieve the parenting pressure on uBPDxw, we arrived at the current arrangement of D13 with me full time, S9 staying on 50-50, and visitation on Sundays so that uBPDxw could work on her relationship with D13 (D10 at the time).  And how those Sunday visitations were still problematic, still caused ongoing distress, and ultimately were stopped when quarantine began.  From there, with the onset of my daughter's eating disorder and her hospitalization, of course any potential changes had to take that into consideration.

uBPDxw's resentment of me for filing at all--and for the current state of her relationship with D13--was very clear throughout the session.  And her absolute inability and unwillingness to perspective-take on what she would have done in my place is also so clear to me.  I hope it is to the FT as well.  And one data point that came out of all of this, which surprised me even though it really shouldn't:  When asked whether she is still seeing her therapist, uBPDxw said yes...once a month.  I think that got the FT's attention, because there is clearly a lot that uBPDxw needs to work through in addition to the overall work on her own behavior.  How in the world is that supposed to happen with her therapy happening only once a month?

mw

[kells76]

I did get triggered a couple of times, but can at least say it wasn't as bad as the first one.

You're making it through. It's a LOT.

Couple of things stood out to me:

the FT did send a follow-up status update summarizing our discussion, with specific reference to her "recommendation that right now S9 spend time in the presence of Fiancé and uBPDxw jointly rather than designated alone time between S9 and Fiancé.

This is really good to have documented. I have this weird feeling that xW can't/won't follow through. There will be "some reason" that's an "emergency" or "what else could she do" where Fiance and S9 will have alone time together ("I just couldn't find another ride for him..." "He told me he really wanted to get ice cream just with her, not with me too"... "I had to work, what was I supposed to do, leave him alone"...). So keep your ears peeled for when that happens, and perhaps approach it in FT with the "befuddlement" stance: "FT, I'm confused, this seemed really clear... what do you suggest happens when a clear recommendation isn't followed... help me understand next steps..."

...

I stressed in the session that the current arrangement has been based on the input of several clinical professionals along the way.  I explained to FT (again) that I did file for full custody of both kids, that it was based on signs of deteriorating mental health for both of them.  I described how we all got on a call...FT at the time, uBPDxw, me, and both of our attorneys.  How based on the FT's recommendations to relieve the parenting pressure on uBPDxw, we arrived at the current arrangement of D13 with me full time, S9 staying on 50-50, and visitation on Sundays so that uBPDxw could work on her relationship with D13 (D10 at the time).  And how those Sunday visitations were still problematic, still caused ongoing distress, and ultimately were stopped when quarantine began.  From there, with the onset of my daughter's eating disorder and her hospitalization, of course any potential changes had to take that into consideration.

This seems to sum up the "new you". You've coped with feeling so triggered and unbelieved in the past, and understandably so. Here, I hear you moving from defense to offense (as it were) -- laying out that you all are here in this setup for a reason and anyone who has a problem with it had better have some dang good insight into why multiple professionals in the past were wrong. I hear backbone happening and winning out over the triggering!

...

And one data point that came out of all of this, which surprised me even though it really shouldn't:  When asked whether she is still seeing her therapist, uBPDxw said yes...once a month.  I think that got the FT's attention, because there is clearly a lot that uBPDxw needs to work through in addition to the overall work on her own behavior.  How in the world is that supposed to happen with her therapy happening only once a month?

Yeah, it's always surprising/not surprising at the same time, the stuff the other parent seems to think is OK to say. I mean, wow... even I would've been like "Right now it's once a month, though we're looking to add time to make it biweekly or weekly". Huge lack of insight -- "I'm doing so awesome that once a month is more than enough".

The idea of "give them enough rope..." (as a figure of speech) often plays out despite our belief that "there's no way she'd say... there's no way they would do...". Sometimes, yeah, you can sit back after you do your part and just let the other person "show who they really are".

...

When's the next FT appt?

[mama-wolf]

This is really good to have documented. I have this weird feeling that xW can't/won't follow through.

Absolutely...and my T had a similar thought.  It helps at least to orient back to the goal/recommendation being set, and then if and when uBPDxw can't or won't follow it, then how can I expect that she will do so on other agreements.  She's full of excuses and rationalizations for doing exactly what she wants to do.  At least when it's spelled out that in order to achieve X you need to do Y, having all those reasons for Y not happening doesn't change the fact that X can't happen as a result.

This seems to sum up the "new you".
I hear backbone happening and winning out over the triggering!

Thanks so much, kells76...that means a lot.

The idea of "give them enough rope..." (as a figure of speech) often plays out despite our belief that "there's no way she'd say... there's no way they would do...". Sometimes, yeah, you can sit back after you do your part and just let the other person "show who they really are".

I honestly thought it would take her much longer to show the FT who she really is.  For better or for worse (especially given the added stress it has been causing me these past few months), she has barreled right into showing this right out of the gate.

When's the next FT appt?

In the follow-up message, the FT asked to schedule a session for D13 and S9 together (which is happening in two weeks), and she asked to schedule our next parent session the week of 9/12.  In the meantime, she said she's also planning to connect with the new PC and with our individual providers (basically D13's T and uBPDxw's T since she has already talked to mine and S9 is not currently seeing his own T).  So, a little space to breathe for a moment it seems...

mw

[mama-wolf]

A quick update, because I'm struggling a lot with it..

Last night, for a third time in three weeks, S9 had an anxiety attack over worry that he would not be able to get to sleep.  It happened Monday two weeks ago, Sunday of last week, and again Monday of this week.  This time he tried talking about it, at least as far as saying he doesn't know why he has this trouble at my house but not at uBPDxw's.  As neutrally as I possibly could, I encouraged him to talk through it some more so that we could try to figure out why that might be or what we can replicate at my house to help, and ultimately he said he thinks he's more comfortable at uBPDxw's apartment. 

I tried calmly exploring the reasons why that might be, like the fact that her dog will sleep in his room, and the fact that D13 lives here and we know that sometimes her reactions can be stressful.  Just trying to acknowledge that the two homes are different, and of course it's normal that he may feel more comfortable at one vs. the other.  I also very generally acknowledged that there are some big changes going on in his life right now (not specifically naming uBPDxw's engagement and the Fiancé moving in in three months), so it's normal that in quiet moments when his mind isn't distracted by other things he can start to feel some anxiety.

I'm really trying to tell myself that it's OK if he feels more comfortable at uBPDxw's house.  But I'm stuck in a loop of what have I done or not done to lend to that feeling, and feeling like a hypocrite and a liar for telling him it's totally OK that he feels that way and that I'm not upset about it.  And I just know as soon as I saw something about it, uBPDxw is going to hone right in on what I must be doing wrong, etc.

Plus, now I'm trying to figure out how to address it in family therapy, given that the current plan is for the next session to be for D13 and S9 together in two weeks, and then another parents' session two weeks after that.  I'm starting to think I might need to request a session for me and S9 to address this, and possibly to start looking into a new individual T for him (he hasn't had one for about 8 months).

mw

[livednlearned]

She was clearly ready to argue point/counter-point on every little detail, and I was not about to fall into that trap.  I said I am more concerned at the overall pace of the relationship for S9, and giving him time to adjust

This is great, mama-wolf. Being able to avoid the traps and focus on what's really important is so ninja! Did this happen after you felt triggered? Because this seems like an amazing recovery. And it sounds like FT was right there with you.

I don't have the authority or ability to just "keep D13 to myself" (which I was able to articulate thanks to my T mentioning it in a prior session).

I hope you feel good about these exchanges given how loaded it is to sit down with a disordered ex and try to focus on what's best for the kids.

My parent coordinator eventually testified in court in order to be withdrawn from our case so I had the opportunity to hear a very candid perspective on who she perceived the problem to be. In our sessions, it hadn't always been clear to me if she understood what was going on but when she described the reasons for seeking a withdrawal, she saw the dynamics clear as day.

When you write about FT asking questions to which she knows the answers, I wonder if doing that is a technique to draw the dynamic out so it plays out in the session (rather than making assumptions that it's a sore point.) Almost like testing a hypothesis. My PC would say, "LnL, do you have an issue with n/BPDx traveling out of state with (then) S11?" The PC knew exactly how I felt yet asked the question anyway and I never understood why. Reading your account makes me wonder if professionals in our case intentionally probe these things so they can see what happens when they try to neutralize it, sort of watching the scenario play out rather than learn about it as hearsay.

I don't know if that makes sense -- I'm reliving the feelings that came up about the triangulation dynamic that can happen in these sessions, where we expect them to be supportive of our positions after sharing one-to-one insights, only to have them seem to rehash those POV in a session, with the perpetrator sitting right there. Kind of like, "LnL said she doesn't do x because n/BPDx will do y, and that is ultimately problematic for S11. So I'm going to raise this issue to see if n/BPDx has that response, and then I'll introduce skills/advice that will help resolve this issue."

Except those skills/advice don't work, and it can feel like we're being invalidated and in some cases re-traumatized.

[mama-wolf]

Did this happen after you felt triggered? Because this seems like an amazing recovery. And it sounds like FT was right there with you.

I honestly don't remember if this part happened before or after I had gotten upset about her description of the potential meetup with Fiancé and leaving out the huge piece of context about my mom.  I guess I would say at minimum I was already activated, but not sure if I was triggered yet.  I'll still count it as a win, and you're right that even though FT was delivering things neutrally, she expressed objective observations that left me feeling validated.

When you write about FT asking questions to which she knows the answers, I wonder if doing that is a technique to draw the dynamic out so it plays out in the session (rather than making assumptions that it's a sore point.) Almost like testing a hypothesis.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's the case...a way to approach the subject that lets them see the issue in action.  Not only to see how it's communicated, but then what's the response, etc.  Plus it takes them out of the equation (having us say it rather than them saying "uBPDxw, mw says she believes X" and so on.  It makes sense that they do this, but it's definitely stressful, sometimes invalidating, and absolutely can be re-traumatizing.  I'm sure that's why my individual T is being super attentive to anything related to family therapy right now, giving me every opportunity to process whatever is coming up.

mw

[ForeverDad]

When I dropped in on my court and went to the bailiff, he always recognized me and asked, "which hearing do you want the sound recording for?"  That way I could refresh my memory of what was said.  I once even paid for a transcript for one court hearing to see it in print.

Would it be beneficial to get a transcript of that hearing with the prior FT's testimony?  That way it's not you plying the new FT with "hearsay" but what the experienced therapist testified to the court.  It could be a sort of heads up.

[mama-wolf]

Would it be beneficial to get a transcript of that hearing with the prior FT's testimony?  That way it's not you plying the new FT with "hearsay" but what the experienced therapist testified to the court.  It could be a sort of heads up.

Are you referring to the previous FT's guidance on the custody arrangement?  That was one via conference call with both attorneys present, as a way to keep us out of court.  So unfortunately there is no recording...

mw

[mama-wolf]

After the parents' session last week, I was so very tempted to send a follow-up email to correct some claims by uBPDxw and explain some decision-making.  And I am now equally glad I held back.  Because yesterday, uBPDxw did that very thing, I think in an effort to prove why she was right, and it left me in a very good position to respond (not react) in a calm and straightforward manner.

For context, here is the follow-up note from FT summarizing status after the parents' session:

Dear MW family:

I hope this email finds you well.

Since my last update on 7/18/22, I have had the opportunity to meet with MW and S9 on 7/25/22, MW and D13 on 7/27/22, uBPDxw and S9 on 7/28/22, MW only on 8/3/22, and both parents on 8/11/22.

The parent-child dyad meetings allowed me to see the interaction between parent and child. By using similar, if not the same activities, it allowed me to observe the family interactions under similar conditions. The parent meetings with S9 allowed me to see his obvious connection with each parent. The parent meeting with D13 allowed me to observe the connection between MW and D13 and how important it is for D13 to have a sense of agency over her environment.

In the joint parent meeting, among other things, we discussed S9's interactions with Fiancé, my recommendation that right now S9 spend time in the presence of Fiancé and uBPDxw jointly rather than designated alone time between S9 and Fiancé; that uBPDxw and MW acknowledge that there are multiple existing stressors in S9's life, and we discussed some of the existing emotional barriers that make co-parenting a challenge.

Next steps -

I will be reaching out to individual providers and introducing myself to the new PC.
I would like to schedule a joint meeting with S9 and D13: Here is my availability
(date/time options)

I would like to schedule a joint parent meeting the week of 9/12/22. My availability that week is:
(date/time options)

Have an enjoyable weekend,
FT

Sent yesterday from uBPDxw to FT with me copied:

FT,

Having had time to reflect on last Thursday's session, I wanted to offer additional information on several items for your consideration.

(1)  Your email of earlier this week stated that I had agreed to limit one-on-one time between Fiancé and S9.  I do not recall agreeing to that; I agreed only on waiting for MW to consider allowing Fiancé to be on the Camp pickup list.  I would like to revisit this topic in the 9/15 session as I'd like to work towards a 11/1 start date for her being added to the pickup list as she will be part of our home by that point.

(2)  I have attached the thread of emails between Fiancé and MW in response to MW's characterization that "Fiancé came out swinging."

(3)  We briefly discussed what was going on with D13 in November of 2019.  To my recollection, MW asserted she was concerned about D13's emerging eating disorder as a reason why she was suing for custody of both children.  Please see attached for my emails with Former PC during that timeframe.

(4)  Please see the attached copy of the PC's Spring 2020 directive concerning D13's use of electronic devices.  This was promulgated just before the shut down in 2020 and just as I was being asked to forfeit my visitation rights with D13.

Thank you for reviewing this information. 
uBPDxw

I'm already laughing about her response to FT's recommendation about time that S9 spends with Fiancé.  It's clear FT stated it was a recommendation, not that uBPDxw agreed to anything, and uBPDxw's message is making it clear she doesn't intend to comply with it.

What struck me about the attachment she included with the thread of emails between me and Fiancé (which is near the end of this thread https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=353399.0 if anyone wants to take a look) was the introductory message from Fiancé addressed to FT.  Where she said she had "no intentions of ruffling [my] feathers," how I made assumptions about her desire to meet with me, how I did not ask for clarity on why "such short notice" wouldn't work for her, and how her response "was not only non-aggressive, but rather polite."  She sounds just like uBPDxw.  And of course she also asked that her perspective be sought out if there were ever any concerns about her specifically.

As far as the attachment with emails between her and Former PC, they show her back-and-forth with him about scheduling medical and new therapist appointments without my agreement (we were still trying to agree on a new therapist with experience in eating disorders and uBPDxw was trying to get a blood test done before we even consulted with a dietician, so I was trying to pump the brakes until we established a plan).  And I think she included that information as a way to show she was actively trying to address treatment for the developing eating disorder, so clearly my concerns about it were not a valid reason to file for custody.  She was very agitated in general when the subject of my filing for the change of custody came up (because surely there was no legitimate reason for me to do so).  When I mentioned that I had hoped things would improve given that she had participated in an IOP, she also got pretty heated, saying I only gave her one week after completing her IOP before filing.

And one of uBPDxw's claims was that I kept interfering with her ability to work on her relationship with (then) D10, saying I would call her, and when (then) D10 would text me with upset messages about being disciplined I wouldn't back uBPDxw up by asking what she did to get in trouble. I never initiated contact.  All I ever did when I received texts or calls--which was confirmed through Former FT and she agreed with me and confirmed I was acting appropriately--was try to offer generic validation and support when she would reach out in distress.  But to uBPDxw, that was me undermining her.

I did ruminate about it quite a bit yesterday, but ultimately took my time and put together the following response:

I have the following responses, and will otherwise engage on these topics as needed in an upcoming session:

(1) I already stated in my OFW response dated 7/22 that I agreed to revisit the subject of Fiancé picking up S9 from school or Camp once she has moved in.

(2) I stand by my characterization of how Fiancé's response felt to me, and I trust FT's ability to recognize the context of my statement.  I was referring specifically to her comment about me not reaching out sooner (given the turmoil of the previous months), and I said so in session.  I completely agree and acknowledge that Fiancé was not overtly aggressive.  And at the same time that she ignored any possible validity to the delay on my end, her response was to offer only one take-it-or-leave-it option, indicated absolutely no flexibility, completely ignored my suggested location, and did not invite any further discussion.

(3) I am confused about the relevance of the emails with Former PC that uBPDxw shared.  However, there is a detail related to my filing for the change in custody that I think needs to be revisited.  uBPDxw insisted in session that I gave her one week from completing her IOP before filing for a change in custody.  I had been thinking of it in terms of timing from the 10-day intensive portion of the program in August of 2019, but can understand uBPDxw's perspective based on the program activities that apparently continued into that October.  Here is the basic timeline:

- uBPDxw participated in the IOP for ten days in late August 2019.
- uBPDxw notified me and Former FT about the IOP during family therapy session on 9/12/2019.  Things had seemed slightly improved in early September, and I hoped that would continue. It didn't.
- Ongoing/increasing concerns and difficulty experienced through late September and all of October--including but not limited to restriction of eating from D13, S9's bm accidents at school/Camp, and specific behaviors of uBPDxw's being addressed in family therapy with Former FT.
- uBPDxw indicated via email on 10/16/2019 to me and Former FT that she had just finished the IOP the day before.   It had not been clear to me initially that the IOP would be continuing into October.  Given the continued decline in behaviors and conditions, I had no faith in its efficacy at this point.
- I filed for the change of custody on 11/1/2019 and uBPDxw was notified that day.

(4) uBPDxw is correct that D13 initiating any communication with me was temporarily halted by directive from Former PC in March of 2020.  When the subject came up in our session, I had been thinking of the limitation of keeping calls to only five minutes, which was recommended by Former FT in February of 2019.

mw

I'm really glad I'll be seeing my T this afternoon!

mw

[kells76]

(1)  Your email of earlier this week stated that I had agreed to limit one-on-one time between Fiancé and S9.  I do not recall agreeing to that

called it    Ugh, but predictable.

Did you send your response, or was it more prepping it for your own thoughts & to have it ready?

[mama-wolf]

I already sent my response, but welcome feedback and thoughts on how best to follow up given there will probably be some predictable attempts to argue point for point.

mw

[kells76]

there will probably be some predictable attempts to argue point for point.

That would be a lot of engagement and a lot of your time and effort sucked in.

I wonder if you could keep things on track by saying something like:

"It's clear there's a lot to talk about here. Let's bring our concerns to the next FT session."

Or something else brief and final (or BIFF...)

Otherwise, I'm just envisioning this turning into a huge, unending email tornado that gives Ex a pretty big platform for distraction, negative engagement, etc.

[mama-wolf]

I basically did that in my answer when I said I would offer the response but otherwise engage as needed in a future session.  I definitely don't intend to continue arguing point for point...I'm just sure uBPDxw will likely try.

Maybe I'm mostly looking for reassurance that my response was mostly appropriate, and validation that my impressions of her message seem on track.  

mw

[livednlearned]

I see where kells76 is coming from.

I also think it's ok to respond as you did given how new this relationship with FT is.

Every time she draws you in to respond point-by-point, she makes you part of the problem. She negatively engages you. Maybe she isn't able to make you half the problem, but some percentage is being assigned to you (by the FT).

I know it's hard to let go of the mischaracterizations of you in her emails, and you're establishing a relationship with FT so you want the truth out there.

I could be wrong, but my sense is that you are being evaluated for a completely different set of criteria than what is actually discussed (or alleged by uBPDxw). When my PC testified in court, she didn't discuss any details of our case, or any of the issues that came up. She mainly commented on who was part of the conflict -- I made judicious use of PC services, whereas n/BPDx was incapable of resolving anything without stirring up more conflict.

It feels to me that this whole circus is watching to see who does what with conflict.

I know you're in a bind. This is a suggestion for navigating that given the stressors on your shoulders because of the way things are set up:

"FT, we are getting to know each other and I admit I feel inclined to respond to these emails given my character is at stake. I would like to let these messages be read on their own merit, but how we are perceived can influence decisions affecting our kids and their well-being. However, my sense is that responding to each point only inflames things further. Do you have any thoughts on how best to handle these messages? I'm willing to follow your lead if you think there is a more productive way."

Thoughts?

[mama-wolf]

I think your suggestion is a good approach, lnl, and will plan to use it in my next discussion with FT.  You're right that with the relationship with this FT being so new, I felt like I needed to respond on some level.  Which I also wanted to use as an opportunity that I could do some perspective taking (which uBPDxw absolutely can't and won't do), and stand up for myself in some way.  

But it's true, to your and kells76's point, getting drawn into the negative interactions is not productive.  It's what uBPDxw sorely wants to do in order to provoke me into an outburst (as she manipulated many times in our marriage...hello, emotional abuse).  So I hope that is evident to FT as well.

mw

[kells76]

"Do you have any thoughts on how best to handle these messages?"

Really good point from LnL.

That takes this from a conflict about "what" (what did she actually say, what did she actually do, who did what and when, who "has the receipts") and moves it into the domain of "how" -- how do you handle this new conflict that has come up on email.

That kind of question that LnL suggested does a lot of work. It acknowledges that you do want to respond, and have something worth responding with, and balances it with -- but you are the kind of person who is open to "new ways" and is OK with leaning on professional guidance if it makes it better for the kids.

[livednlearned]

Something else I just thought about ...

When uBPDxw responded to FT with

(1)  Your email of earlier this week stated that I had agreed to limit one-on-one time between Fiancé and S9.  I do not recall agreeing to that; I agreed only on waiting for MW to consider allowing Fiancé to be on the Camp pickup list.  I would like to revisit this topic in the 9/15 session as I'd like to work towards a 11/1 start date for her being added to the pickup list as she will be part of our home by that point.

...that is a third-party professional starting to experience firsthand the treatment you've been living with.

When this happened in my case, it was a game changer, setting things up for what became almost a slam dunk for full custody.

First, it happened to the PC. Then, n/BPDx did it with the judge.

I remember the silence that followed when n/BPDx accused the judge of lying about his back surgery (which was why one of our hearings was delayed).

It was the sound of the judge realizing there was no reasoning with this person. I could say it all day in 500 different ways to make my point, but there was no substitute for the judge experiencing that kind of thing directly.

If that continues in the next session, it could be a big eye opener for FT.

And you could sit back and relax 

[mama-wolf]

...that is a third-party professional starting to experience firsthand the treatment you've been living with.

If that continues in the next session, it could be a big eye opener for FT.

And you could sit back and relax 

Absolutely...that's why I had to laugh when I read it.  And why I specifically avoided including the comment I wanted to include in my response about being very concerned that uBPDxw clearly does not intend to follow FT's recommendation.  I know FT is very experienced in this sort of thing, and I wanted to see if/how she responded on that point.  Turns out she did send a quick reply this morning:

Good morning,

I have received the communications and will need some time to review them.
uBPDxw, I apologize as it seems I misstated the intentions.  I thought I understood from our meeting that at least in the short-term, you were in agreement with the idea that S9 would continue to get to know Fiancé more in your presence.

Best,
FT

I fully intend to just sit back quietly and watch that play out.  There is nothing more that I can say on it really, so we'll see if it's discussed further in our next parents' session next month.

mw

[livednlearned]

It seems, too, that the fiancee's involvement may amplify the effect of uBPDxw, rather than moderate her behaviors.

So far (reading between lines) it appears that fiancee is more likely to act/say/do what will make uBPDxw happy.

That won't end well.