Small Ray of Hope from the New PC

[mama-wolf]

A little bit of extra anxiety spiked this morning with yet another message from uBPDxw...but then, a ray of hope!

First, some background:

• uBPDxw has long wanted to force installation of monitoring software that we both can access to track all digital activity on the kids' devices.  Her stated goal was safety, monitoring for predators, controlling inappropriate content, etc.  In reality, she also very much wanted direct and unlimited access to all call activity, location information, and text messages (particularly any that my daughter would send me while in distress at uBPDxw's house, and any responses I may send).
• It started with then-D9's iPad when we separated, which she used to contact me frequently during uBPDxw's custodial time. uBPDxw has pushed on the subject each time over the last four years where there has been any question about a new device purchase or access to new apps/social media as the kids (particularly D13) has gotten older.
• I have consistently opposed the idea of any kind of monitoring program because I knew distressed messages from our daughter would be used against her, any instance that I didn't shut our daughter down and specifically advocate for uBPDxw in response would be used against me.  Plus, having to share login information and parental control settings would just become a constant battleground and require way too much contact between us.
• Former FT and Former PC seemed to agree with my concerns, or at least found them reasonable, and they consistently managed to contain uBPDxw's requests to the understanding that each parent could monitor usage and review content directly on the devices during their custodial time.  Former PC eventually did issue this directive in March of 2020, which intentionally left out anything about monitoring software:
  

  Both parents shall have full and complete access to monitor, supervise, and otherwise manage all of the children’s electronic devices, e-mail, and social media accounts, including but not limited to phones, tablets, laptops, and smart watches.

• Back in March of this year--when everything was blowing up regarding family therapy and the PC Report--it came up again because I asked uBPDxw for her agreement to upgrade D13's phone for her birthday.  After agreeing, she tried to push on the monitoring software again, then escalated to the PC when I reiterated the same response from the previous four years.
• Former PC basically said he would not be making any changes to his original directive while everything was up in the air with our court hearing.

.
Now, on to the ray of hope...

Two weeks ago, uBPDxw forwarded the March 2020 directive to the new PC, saying she has asked me several times about installing a particular monitoring software (or something similar), and claiming I have repeatedly refused to do so.  So she asked if PC would "assist in enforcing this directive."

PC was off on vacation when uBPDxw sent the message, but followed up the next week and said she understood this topic has come up on several occasions, so she wanted to speak with Former PC before addressing anything related to it.  She said she would circle back with us with any questions at that point.

Two days later, Former FT emailed us asking for updated consent forms and billing info since the PC had also reached out to her on the subject.  Less than two hours later, uBPDxw sent a message to Former FT that she does not consent to her being in contact with PC, then sent a separate message to PC saying "In the interest of your time and that of related professionals, I want to rescind my request for review and/or enforcement of Former PC's March 2020 Directive."

PC basically said sure no problem, but added "As a reminder all current directives from Former PC remain in place until a new directive is issued or a court rules differently."  So of course my alarm bells went off, because I knew what would come next...

And it did.  Nearly a week after that message from the PC, the message I knew was coming from uBPDxw arrived:

MW,

Since Former PC's Directive of March 2020 is still in force, please let me know by end of business on 9/14 if you have installed a monitoring app on D13's phone and both kids' iPads at your house.  I will need to install the same on S9's iPad that he uses at my house.  

I would like to suggest Monitoring App but am open to suggestions from you about your preference.

Thank you,
uBPDxw

My response:

uBPDxw,

Former PC did not issue a directive mandating installation of monitoring software, and I do not intend to do so.  I understood that to be the basis of your escalation to him in March, for which he did not issue any further directives.

PC, please let me know if you need any documentation, background information, or questions answered from me.  As you are aware, this subject has come up many times over the past few years, so if uBPDxw wishes to pursue it further then it sounds like you will need to be in contact with Former FT after all.

MW

And THEN...the best part, from PC within thirty minutes of uBPDxw's message:

All:

Former PC's directive does not require the use of monitoring apps on the children's apps.  That being said, it also does not prevent uBPDxw from installing a monitoring device on S9's ipad at her home should she see fit.

This issue has come up multiple times at this point - both with me and with Former PC.  I have had Former PC forward me all communication on this issue.  To be clear, uBPDxw cannot monitor D13's electronics.  I know this is not the current request I just want to ensure there is no confusion on this moving forward.  

If you both need me to issue a formal directive on the matter I am happy to but I want to prevent further back and forth on this issue.

Kind regards,
PC

I imagine the subject will still come up in family therapy in some way or another, but for now it seems contained.  And the new PC specifically said that if topics keep coming up with her that have already been addressed, she'll allocate her fees accordingly to the person who keeps chasing them.  I'm not very good at identifying my feelings, but there's definitely some relief swirling in there.

Also, I find it funny how uBPDxw didn't recognize that she was asking for enforcement on a directive that was two years old, where surely Former PC would have stepped in during that time if there had been an issue of non-compliance on my part...

mw

[kells76]

To be clear, uBPDxw cannot monitor D13's electronics.

That had to be a huge relief to read. I feel it as a solid wall of safety, finally.

It's been a LONG journey for you of almost constant pointing at evidence, communications, emails, etc... of relitigating the same  stuff over and over between you and uBPDxW in front of a parade of professionals.

It feels like all that legwork may be starting to pay off.

...

When's the next FT appt, and who's going to be there?

[mama-wolf]

Absolutely a relief to read, yes!

The next FT appointment is next Wednesday with me and S9 due to him having some issues with sleep lately.  Once a week for three weeks in a row at my house, he had an anxiety attack worrying he would not be able to get to sleep...which of course was a bit of a self-fulfilling feedback loop.  Then the next week (last week) he got to sleep OK but woke up at 1am and had the same problem until about 4am.  Thankfully this week he didn't have any issue, but it's clear to me that this is all manifestation of the same anxiety that had him chewing things more, which I think stems from the rapid integration of uBPDxw's new fiancé into day-to-day life over at her house.

Then we have our next parents' session the following Wednesday, and it's just me and uBPDxw with FT (but virtual at least).  I know uBPDxw is chomping at the bit to address various topics, including why it seems that S9 only has these sleep troubles at my house.

mw

[kells76]

I know uBPDxw is chomping at the bit to address various topics, including why it seems that S9 only has these sleep troubles at my house.

Might be good to brainstorm a bit here how to navigate that allegation, just so you can stay in problem-solving vs reacting mode during the appt. We've gone through it, too, FWIW ("The kids only act out at MY house because they're having problems with YOU that they don't feel safe talking to you about")    

One approach could be, like we've talked about before, immediately to turn to the FT and do the "so what have you seen in your experience, is this a typical behavior," move -- vs starting on defense.

Another approach could be based on the Dr. Craig Childress' "locus of stimulus control" idea (starting on page 22 of his Attachment System Q&A article, linked here: https://drcachildress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Pathogenic-Parenting-and-the-Attachment-System-Qustion-Answer-Format-Childress-2012.pdf ):

Basically, he's suggesting that if one parent asserts "the kids only behave this way because of your bad parenting/problems at your house/etc", then there is a way to test that. While his format is focused on the "target parent/pathogenic parent" dyad, it seems like it could be applied to this scenario, as it's testing the question of -- who is really impacting the child's behavior:

If the child’s behavior is an authentic response to the parenting behavior of the rejected parent, then the child’s behavior is under the stimulus control of the parenting behavior of the rejected parent. So if we change the parenting behavior of the rejected parent we should see a corresponding change in the child’s behavior. If, however, when we change the parenting behavior of the rejected parent we do not produce a corresponding change in the child’s behavior, then this is indicative that the child’s behavior is not under the stimulus control of the parenting behavior of the rejected parent. So if the child’s behavior is not under the stimulus control of the parenting behavior of the targeted-rejected parent, then the question emerges as to what is the source, or locus, of stimulus control for the child’s rejecting behavior toward the targeted parent. In the case of an externally induced suppression of the child’s natural attachment bonding to the targeted parent, the locus of stimulus control is the pathogenic parenting of the idealized parent.

(page 23)

and again on page 27:

The pathogenic parent may assert that he or she has no control over the child, but such an assertion would not be consistent with the clinical determination based on the child’s symptoms. Furthermore, the pathogenic parent may assert that his or her parenting behavior is normal-range as evidenced by the child’s report regarding the quality of the parent-child bond with the pathogenic parent. But the child’s report is simply a feature of the activation of the protection-seeking response of the child’s attachment system as the result of the pathogenic parent’s communication to the child of threat from the other parent. The child is symptomatically hyper-bonding with the idealized parent for protection from threat. The fundamental, and sole issue is the child’s symptoms. When the child’s symptoms of severely disturbed functioning to the child’s attachment system resolve, then contact with the psychopathology of the pathogenic parenting can be restored, with ongoing and active therapeutic monitoring to ensure that the pathogenic parent does not reintroduce suppressive effects on the child’s attachment system. It should be the severity of the child’s symptoms that guide treatment decisions

Again, yes, it's focused on a slightly different issue, but fundamentally this would be a framework for addressing S9's sleep problems.

I'm guessing that if there were something you were doing as a parent that were contributing to him having sleep anxiety, and a professional pointed it out to you, and told you to try stopping doing X and starting doing Y, that you would comply and be happy to try it, right?

That's another approach to take, in conjunction with the "parental locus of control" idea.

The FT is an expert and therefore will likely have ideas immediately of things to try to help S9. You can model willingness to try changing things on your end for S9's benefit -- provided the FT monitors the intervention and assesses whether it is effective. If what you change, based on the FT's recommendation, doesn't make things better for S9, then I would assume that the FT as a professional would recommend xW try different things.

It would be really, really interesting if the FT recommended you try something differently, and it slightly decreased S9's problems, but not completely. Which would raise the question, what is contributing to the rest of the problem?

Anyway, lots of food for thought. So sorry she keeps on doing the blame game.

[mama-wolf]

Might be good to brainstorm a bit here how to navigate that allegation, just so you can stay in problem-solving vs reacting mode during the appt.

An excellent idea and I really appreciate all of what you shared!

I'm guessing that if there were something you were doing as a parent that were contributing to him having sleep anxiety, and a professional pointed it out to you, and told you to try stopping doing X and starting doing Y, that you would comply and be happy to try it, right?

It would be really, really interesting if the FT recommended you try something differently, and it slightly decreased S9's problems, but not completely. Which would raise the question, what is contributing to the rest of the problem?

Without a doubt.  That's the whole reason for me scheduling a session specifically for me and S9 to try to address this with FT's guidance and feedback (given that S9 does not currently have an individual therapist himself).

Which brings up another point.  That first night, I tried working with him for about three hours (until a little after midnight), at which point I agreed to let him climb into my bed so we could both get some rest.  On one of the other nights, I let him take a melatonin, since he expressed that the worry was starting to build up in his mind and I hoped we could get ahead of it.  That morning he couldn't get back to sleep, I again let him crawl in my bed after a couple of hours just in hopes that we could both get some more sleep. 

He hasn't needed any of these things the many other nights he has stayed with me over the past month or so, just those instances.  In my custody exchange updates, I was completely transparent about everything...which then prompted the following message from uBPDxw:

FYI:  I recall that melatonin and co-sleeping were both slightly contentious issues with Family T back in 2020.  At your insistence, I quit giving him melatonin and cut way back on co-sleeping unless he was having nightmares/disturbances.

While your change in position on these issues surprised me, I want to let you know I am 100% in favor of you giving melatonin, co-sleeping, etc as he works through his nighttime anxiety.  I want you to feel free to exercise that parental discretion on your custodial time and ask that you do the same for me.

I felt the need to walk the line between being clear about my own position while trying not to get drawn into a point/counter-point argument.  Especially given that my escalation at the time had ultimately resulted in Former PC issuing a directive that the custodial parent would notify the non-custodial parent if melatonin was used or co-sleeping occurred during their time with the child.  So I sent the following back:

FYI - It seems there has been some misunderstanding about my position, so I will try to be more clear.  My escalation regarding melatonin and co-sleeping in 2020 had everything to do with the fact that:

1) S9 was getting melatonin every night he was at your house and had come to believe he needed it to go to sleep even though he was not getting it at my house.
2) S9 was co-sleeping with you on a nightly basis at your house for over two years post-separation, in direct contradiction to recommendations from Former FT (more than once) that this should not continue

My notice to you about my responses to S9's recent sleep issues is in compliance with the attached directive from Former PC.  I have every intention of continuing this transparency with you, as well as following the recommendations from FT about how best to proceed in supporting S9 from here.

My escalation was never about just making her stop doing those things no matter what, regardless of any circumstances.  It was about the fact that they were long-term practices at her house, which were having a larger impact on Then-S7's overall sleep.  My request was that we address his sleep hygiene openly as a therapeutic topic with his individual T and in family therapy...but she brushed me off multiple times and kept telling me to just drop it.

I was sure she would have something to say about my response, which she did:

Thank you for your verbose, but non-responsive reply.

Regarding your assumptions about S9 co-sleeping at my house:

-  It was not ever nightly while living in the house in Town A.  It was occasional.
-  It was nightly only while living at the townhouse in Town B for 90 days.  He did not like that apartment and was scared to sleep in his own room.  That greatly informed my decision to move, again, after only 90 days.
-  As soon as Family T recommended that I minimize/stop co-sleeping I did.  I used melatonin with him to assist him with sleeping in the new house in Town B.

Please don't mischaracterize what I did and didn't do in my house because you were not there.

Needless to say, I have all the notes and documentation of what happened when, and her message is not accurate.  It would be fair to adjust my wording to say that co-sleeping happened "on a nightly basis for extended periods of time" over more than two years rather than just "on a nightly basis," but I did not engage further.  I take it this will also be part of the overall discussion in the next session with FT, and I will have the necessary details ready if FT decides they're relevant or useful.  To be clear, I intend to stay focused on what's happening now, but I expect uBPDxw to dredge up whatever she can in service of her own arguments and feelings.

mw

[ForeverDad]

I only skimmed the article quotes, my bad, but one impression I've had here over time is that the child may "let loose with distress signals" in a place where the child feels free to do so.

Sort of a transition after-effect?  A variation on acting out after a transition?  I guess my question is whether this occurs more often early in your parenting time, or throughout?

[mama-wolf]

one impression I've had here over time is that the child may "let loose with distress signals" in a place where the child feels free to do so.

This has been my suspicion as far as S9 goes, but of course that’s easier for me to think than some other explanation.  I have also kept that to myself, leaving it entirely up to FT to address if it seems relevant.

One night that he was having trouble, S9  actually opened up and talked about it a little.  He wondered aloud why he would be having this trouble at my house, but not at uBPDxw’s, saying maybe he’s more comfortable over there.  I was fairly gutted at the idea, but stayed completely neutral and openly curious while telling him that’s entirely possible and ok. I offered to explore the differences that would contribute to that feeling, and we talked about the dog at that house who likes to sleep on his bed.  And how D13 isn’t at that house, and sometimes her reactions to things can be stressful, or just frustrating with normal sibling stuff.

My T mentioned that these issues have been happening at transition times.  Three out of the five times have been on the Monday night he has come to me after five nights with uBPDxw.  The other two were on Sunday night in the middle of my five days.  Not transition days into my care, but my T observed that it was  a transition time as well, moving out of the weekend into the school week. We’ll see if the pattern continues…

mw