trial for sole legal custody

[livednlearned]

Yesterday, he submitted a witness list of his own (also past the deadline), which included 40 people, including his ex-wife and his older son, my boss, my supervisor, my church's choir director, and on and on.

And then he requested that he be able to submit photographs of his older son, photos of S12, an article N/BPDx wrote for a local newspaper when I became a citizen.

Ugh. I know it's crazy, and that will work in my favor, but I'm feeling anxious and worried about the escalation. This stuff is desperate.

[Rose Tiger]

Oh, one other tidbit.  My previous T was involved in a custody case of her client, she used the section in The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists book where it talks about the effects of a narcissistic parent on a child to help explain to the judge why this is not good for the kiddo.  Her client did end up with sole custody. 

I don't know if that helps at all but wanted to pass that on. 

[Ishenuts]

It does all sound cazy, but at least you know what he's going to ask ahead of time, and you can prepare with answers and supporting documentation.

My uNPDexH has filed motions for change in court for changes to the parenting plan, but I (or my lawyer) haven't been served yet. The court date is 9/16, so he doesn't have to serve us until 9/4 - 12 days in advance according to the law in our state. He doesn't know that I know about it (helps to have friends that like to read judicial web sites!)

I will go to the courthouse and get copies, and my lawyer and I can prepare, and maybe file a few of our own for all of his contempt issues. Hate this merry-go-round!

[livednlearned]

Oh, one other tidbit.  My previous T was involved in a custody case of her client, she used the section in The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists book where it talks about the effects of a narcissistic parent on a child to help explain to the judge why this is not good for the kiddo.  Her client did end up with sole custody. 

I don't know if that helps at all but wanted to pass that on. 

I hadn't read that book yet -- just got it. Describes so well what my experience was as a kid. My son is experiencing the "chosen" child projections, which I think would bamboozle him completely, except that he doesn't see his dad enough for it to be over-the-top toxic.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[bpdex]

Your situation sounds horrible.  However, having been on the stand answering uncomfortable questions by my xBPDw's L, I have a few pointers for you:

1. Listen carefully to the question being asked... . (my x's attorney tried many times to get me to answer a question quickly in an effort to say I lied about something) 

2. If you're not positive or you don't understand the question, ask them to repeat or clarify the question... . (my x's L would often ask multiple questions in an effort to throw me off or trick me into confirming or denying something that wasn't the case.)

3. NEVER let them get under your skin or show a lot of emotion.  (I know this is your biggest concern, but that's exactly what they want to do.  It allows them to paint you as weak, incompetent, etc... . )

4. If they ask you a Yes or No question, answer it with a simple Yes or No response (This was difficult for me because you feel a strong urge to explain your answer.  Trust that your L will clarify your answers in the cross-examination and move on.  Otherwise, you may open yourself up to questions they may not have asked because you gave them additional material in your response you wouldn't have given them had you just answered Yes or No)

5. Don't answer too quickly, pause very briefly, think about the question, and then answer it.  This also will give your attorney an opportunity to object to the question if need be.

6. Remember that your L always gets the last opportunity to examine you on the stand.

Ultimately, your attorney is there to protect you, and you have to trust them to do that.  I would guess your x will attempt ask a lot questions that your attorney will object to, which may, in turn, frustrate/fluster the x, which may work in your favor.  Also, if the court system in your area is very bogged down, it's likely the judge only allow a short amount of time, and the burden of proof is on your x, not you.

[Matt]

1. Listen carefully to the question being asked... . (my x's attorney tried many times to get me to answer a question quickly in an effort to say I lied about something) 

Yes, and sometimes if you listen carefully, the answer may be just "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know".  Then there's no reason to say more.

2. If you're not positive or you don't understand the question, ask them to repeat or clarify the question... . (my x's L would often ask multiple questions in an effort to throw me off or trick me into confirming or denying something that wasn't the case.)

Asking for the question to be repeated also gives you a little more time to think (even if you heard it OK the first time).

If you are asked multiple questions, you can just answer the last one and ignore the others (or the first one if you prefer).

3. NEVER let them get under your skin or show a lot of emotion.  (I know this is your biggest concern, but that's exactly what they want to do.  It allows them to paint you as weak, incompetent, etc... . )

4. If they ask you a Yes or No question, answer it with a simple Yes or No response (This was difficult for me because you feel a strong urge to explain your answer.  Trust that your L will clarify your answers in the cross-examination and move on.  Otherwise, you may open yourself up to questions they may not have asked because you gave them additional material in your response you wouldn't have given them had you just answered Yes or No)

My lawyer told me this too - if it's a yes/no question we're tempted to elaborate - in normal conversation that's how we usually talk - but take the opportunity to just say "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know" and then stop.  Make the other attorney work for it!

5. Don't answer too quickly, pause very briefly, think about the question, and then answer it.  This also will give your attorney an opportunity to object to the question if need be.

6. Remember that your L always gets the last opportunity to examine you on the stand.

Ultimately, your attorney is there to protect you, and you have to trust them to do that.  I would guess your x will attempt ask a lot questions that your attorney will object to, which may, in turn, frustrate/fluster the x, which may work in your favor.  Also, if the court system in your area is very bogged down, it's likely the judge only allow a short amount of time, and the burden of proof is on your x, not you.

There is usually a limited amount of time - courts have a lot of cases backed up - so if the other attorney has to ask you a lot of questions to get the information he wants -  not because you're being difficult, but because you are only answer what he asks and not offering more information - he is likely to give up and go on to another witness, or the judge may tell him to finish up.  If you are answering the questions he asks, this will reflect on him not you.

[FamilyLaw]

Here's a lawyer's perspective:

The "admit" questions are called Interrogatories.  The idea with an interrogatory is to find out what areas there are no arguments about.  For example, in an auto accident case, I might send a list of interrogatories that includes "Admit that Plaintiff was driving a blue Honda on July 11, 2013."  If you admit to that, then I don't have to prove it later on.  But some people misuse interrogatories to badger the other side.  There are two ways your lawyer can deal with them: (1) simply state admit or deny after each interrogatory; or (2) state that the interrogatory is irrelevant to the issue at hand and refuse to answer the irrelevant ones.  At least in my jurisdiction, a judge is never going to see the interrogs or the answers.

I always tell my clients there are three answers to a question from the other side -- Yes, No or "I don't know/remember".  Everything else you lawyer will get out of you be asking questions and getting explanations.

This is hard to do when your ex is the one asking the questions because he is representing himself.  Oftentimes I see folks fall into old patterns and start to argue with the other side, because it feels like an argument rather than court.  Please pretend at all times that he is a stranger and a lawyer and treat him like that.  Especially be careful with your body language.  I have a client who was being cross-examined by his ex.  He slumped in his chair and cross his arms across his chest.  It came across as disrespectful and rude.  I don't think he meant it that way, it was just an old argument he'd had with her and he fell into old patterns.  But for the Judge it just looked bad.

[livednlearned]

Thanks Matt, FamilyLaw, and BPDex -- truly. This feels like the fight of my life and I'm trying to take it all in: how to answer, how to sit, how to respond, what to say, what not to say. Having the opposing L be N/BPDx feels like a nightmare. Gah!

There is hope, tho. I saw my L today, and she feels so positive about my judge. She watched a similar case unfold with a narcissist (representing himself), and the judge shut him down right quick, awarded full custody to the mother, and made the NPD pay full legal fees. The trial took only two hours.

It gives me hope. And I saw the judge interact with N/BPDx last February when the PC called a hearing to ask for the court's intervention with N/BPDx. He was very punitive about N/BPDx wasting the court's time with issues that were clearly spelled out in the order.

Last, my L read to me parts of the psych eval. No surprise to me, but the psych eval (not the MMPI) says N/BPDx is a narcissist, a misogynist, and an alcoholic. I don't get to see the actual report, so that's how my L characterized what was written in the report. It was 12 pages long. The judge has a copy.

I have some homework to do tonight, making sure my L has everything she needs. And Rose Tiger, thanks for suggesting the Wizard of Oz book -- it gave me language to help describe the confounding things that N/BPDx does. Like "deliberately creates ambiguous situations, leaving doubt about how to respond." N/BPDx keeps insisting that there is no instance of him not cooperating with me, and my L said to pull together examples of when we could not cooperate. It's hard to explain to others what kinds of tricks a pwBPD does to undermine you, and that book is helping me put those experiences into words.

[Matt]

The "admit" questions are called Interrogatories.  The idea with an interrogatory is to find out what areas there are no arguments about.  For example, in an auto accident case, I might send a list of interrogatories that includes "Admit that Plaintiff was driving a blue Honda on July 11, 2013."  If you admit to that, then I don't have to prove it later on.  But some people misuse interrogatories to badger the other side.  There are two ways your lawyer can deal with them: (1) simply state admit or deny after each interrogatory; or (2) state that the interrogatory is irrelevant to the issue at hand and refuse to answer the irrelevant ones.  At least in my jurisdiction, a judge is never going to see the interrogs or the answers.

Good information - I never heard that!  Interrogatories in my case didn't take that "Admit that... . " form.

But... . shouldn't LnL's attorney have explained that?  If she isn't explaining basic stuff like this - it only took you a few short sentences to make it very clear! - what is she getting paid for?

[livednlearned]

The "admit" questions are called Interrogatories.  The idea with an interrogatory is to find out what areas there are no arguments about.  For example, in an auto accident case, I might send a list of interrogatories that includes "Admit that Plaintiff was driving a blue Honda on July 11, 2013."  If you admit to that, then I don't have to prove it later on.  But some people misuse interrogatories to badger the other side.  There are two ways your lawyer can deal with them: (1) simply state admit or deny after each interrogatory; or (2) state that the interrogatory is irrelevant to the issue at hand and refuse to answer the irrelevant ones.  At least in my jurisdiction, a judge is never going to see the interrogs or the answers.

Good information - I never heard that!  Interrogatories in my case didn't take that "Admit that... . " form.

But... . shouldn't LnL's attorney have explained that?  If she isn't explaining basic stuff like this - it only took you a few short sentences to make it very clear! - what is she getting paid for?

My L has so many wacky things coming at her from N/BPDx right now. There is stuff I haven't had the energy to even explain here, and now things are getting complicated and technical, with him representing himself and missing deadlines and doing things that are legal, but make him look crazy. She is explaining that stuff to me in detail, and her associate did tell me that most of what was in the interrogatory was objectionable. I've seen my L in action before, and trust her. I also saw my recent bill -- she isn't charging me for everything. She also is no longer charging me interest on what I owe her, and told me to pay what I can, but to always pay at least something. I can live with that!

Honestly, there is so much coming at me from N/BPDx it's hard to keep up with it. The hard thing is that even if I figure out what it all means legally, it's hard to know how he's exploiting those tools, and how the courts will view it.

[whirlpoollife]

"Be strong and of good courage. You are leader of your people now, Joshua... . I am with you wherever you go."

Good words from the bible.  I feel your anxiety. But your posts have helped so many of us here and in a sense you have been a leader because there is a strong will side of you.   And, besides God, we are with you 100%.

[livednlearned]

I'm feeling a bit neurotic with trial two days away. I could really use help thinking about how to answer some of the questions N/BPDx included in his motion to suspend my custody of S12. It's a crazy motion on a bunch of levels, but the statements in there are helpful for me as I prepare.

Here is one of the items I know N/BPDx will bring up in one way or another:

Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that the minor child would be best served by her control.

That kind of question makes my brain crash. N/BPDx is so insidious, so it's always hard to pinpoint an example of him "obstructing" the decision-making process. Do I describe how narcissists and pwBPD function? How much time will I have to explain? How do I answer this question briefly and succinctly? Is it possible to be too succinct?

[Waddams]

In your motion for sole legal custody, what were your grounds?  What supporting documentation do you have?  And has he filed any interrogatories asking for said documentation?

Perhaps the response is that Defendant hasn't asked? Or if he has, refer to interrogatory response dated <insert date>? 

Or perhaps the answer is "see points 1 through X in my filing".

Or you could also just say "is there a question there?" and leave it at that.

[Matt]

Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that the minor child would be best served by her control.

How about this:

I have not asked for "control".  I am asking the court for custody, so I can help Child in every way that he will need help over the coming years - taking care of his physical needs, his emotional needs, his need for a quiet and secure home, help with his education, support for his social growth, etc.  I am able to meet all his needs, and also to help him maintain a relationship with the other parent, without subjecting him to too much "control" from either parent.

Note that there was a trap in this question:  the question implied that you want "control".  A key to answering hostile questions is to see and expose the hidden assumptions, and then answer the question you want to answer, which may be different from what was asked.  Tell why you think custody would be best for the child, not why you want control.

[Matt]

In your motion for sole legal custody, what were your grounds?  What supporting documentation do you have?  And has he filed any interrogatories asking for said documentation?

Perhaps the response is that Defendant hasn't asked? Or if he has, refer to interrogatory response dated <insert date>? 

Or perhaps the answer is "see points 1 through X in my filing".

Or you could also just say "is there a question there?" and leave it at that.

This is a really good point.  Let me expand on it a little.

In your posts, you seem super-concerned about what the other side will ask, and you want to be prepared to answer those hostile questions.  I think that's very smart, and maybe going through those here - name any question you hope he won't ask but you're concerned he might, and we can talk about ways to answer that - I think that kind of preparation is really smart and will have a big impact.

Another thing you can do at the same time is to prepare your own message - what are the key points you want to make?  For example, if you know the court's main criteria for custody, maybe you can base your main points on those.

For example, in my case, my main points might have been:

* I am a very involved father.

* I am emotionally stable and able to give the kids a quiet, secure home.

* I will make sure they have healthy contact with their mother.

* Their mother has serious problems and being with her too much puts the kids at risk.

So... . any time you're asked a question, you look for a way to answer it with one of those points.

He asks, ":)on't you think a boy needs his father?" and you say, "I think it's best for a boy to have two emotionally healthy parents.  When that's not possible we have to find the best solution.  In this case I think it's best for Son to spend some time with his father regularly, and for Son to keep seeing Counselor, so Counselor can advise us how that contact with his father is working out."  (Just an example - not saying that's the right answer for you.)  My point is, given a hostile question, you use it as an opportunity to give points #3 and #4 above (but with "mother" and "father" reversed).

So... . it might help to brainstorm answers to the worst questions you're afraid he might ask, and also to list out your main (positive) points, and look for ways to fit those points into answers to whatever questions he asks.

[livednlearned]

In your posts, you seem super-concerned about what the other side will ask, and you want to be prepared to answer those hostile questions.  I think that's very smart, and maybe going through those here - name any question you hope he won't ask but you're concerned he might, and we can talk about ways to answer that - I think that kind of preparation is really smart and will have a big impact.

He is throwing anything he can at me to see what sticks, and I don't know whether to answer each item, or whether to just say, "The Defendant is making a false allegation and/or distorting the events. For example, here are more of the things listed in his motion for sole custody:

Plaintiff has repeatedly abducted the minor child and removed him from State in violation of the Court's orders, statutory authority, and criminal laws.

You are making a false allegation of abduction that is not based on fact.

Plaintiff has a history of treatment for eating disorders, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and anger management, all of which are implicated in her attempts to antagonize, control, and alienate Defendant and his relationship with the minor child.

Again, you are making false allegations not based on fact.

Plaintiff has taken the minor child to mental health professionals without fully consulting or informing the Defendant, and then fabricated reasons and purposes after the fact.

There is a pattern of creating deliberately ambiguous situations in which you give consent, and then complain that you were not consulted. There is also a pattern of asking me directly for information instead of talking to the professionals involved in S12's care, and then blaming me that you were not properly informed.

Another thing you can do at the same time is to prepare your own message - what are the key points you want to make?  For example, if you know the court's main criteria for custody, maybe you can base your main points on those.

*I am an emotionally stable, loving, devoted mother

*I am S12's primary caregiver. He spends 96% of his time with me.

*I am an active advocate in S12's education

I also want to say:

*N/BPDx has serious problems with anger that severely impedes his ability to participate in decision-making with me

*This undermines my efforts to provide S12 with basic support and services for his educational needs

*N/BPDx has a pattern of using threats and intimidation for even minor issues involving S12,

*N/BPDx deliberately creates ambiguous situations so he can obstruct decision-making. For example, S12's psychiatrist was unable to tell if N/BPDx agreed to his son's dx, and therefore was reluctant to treat him. He voluntarily asked to change the temporary order to Skype with S12 3x a week, and then makes false allegations of alienation.

[livednlearned]

During the last hearing, which the PC called because N/BPDx had threatened her, she did this:

N/BPDx "PC, did you say this and that and that?"

And she said,

"Mr. N/BPDx, you said many things. You made many accusations."

It doesn't sound like much, but it seemed very effective to me. It was appropriately patronizing, the way a weary mother would speak to an ill-behaved child.

[KateCat]

livednlearned,

Jeez, he seems to think you're a defendant in the infamous "Star Chamber" or something. 

How does he present in court during these hearings? Is he able to appear to be calm even when asking long strings of preposterous "questions" or does he become visibly agitated? (I'm kinda hoping it's the latter.)

[livednlearned]

livednlearned,

Jeez, he seems to think you're a defendant in the infamous "Star Chamber" or something. 

How does he present in court during these hearings? Is he able to appear to be calm even when asking long strings of preposterous "questions" or does he become visibly agitated? (I'm kinda hoping it's the latter.)

He's only represented himself once, and that was during the PC's hearing, so I only saw him that one time. And I didn't have to speak, just the PC and my L. N/BPDx is a trial lawyer, and you can see that he clearly feels comfortable in court. He tried to walk around and gesture, but the judge told him to sit (three times). He came across as angry, but I noticed his mouth was super dry. When he was done, and the judge started talking, N/BPDx interrupted a few times and the judge shut him down. Honestly, he appeared professional. But the judge was pissed at him because N/BPDx was contesting things that he consented too, and then there was the issue of him threatening the PC. Judge obviously didn't like that, nor did he like having issues brought into his court that were clearly spelled out in the order.

[KateCat]

"Be strong and of good courage. You are leader of your people now, Joshua... . I am with you wherever you go."

Man, I'm with whirlpoollife! I guess I'm seeing you also as Joan of Arc, headed in for a medieval "ordeal" type trial. You really are the leader of your people . . . .

Bon courage!

[Matt]

*I am an emotionally stable, loving, devoted mother

*I am S12's primary caregiver. He spends 96% of his time with me.

*I am an active advocate in S12's education

I also want to say:

*N/BPDx has serious problems with anger that severely impedes his ability to participate in decision-making with me

*This undermines my efforts to provide S12 with basic support and services for his educational needs

*N/BPDx has a pattern of using threats and intimidation for even minor issues involving S12,

*N/BPDx deliberately creates ambiguous situations so he can obstruct decision-making. For example, S12's psychiatrist was unable to tell if N/BPDx agreed to his son's dx, and therefore was reluctant to treat him. He voluntarily asked to change the temporary order to Skype with S12 3x a week, and then makes false allegations of alienation.

This seems to me like a good list of your key points, or you might want to boil the second list down into one or two.  If you keep your key points all very, very simple, it will be easier to remember them and to fit them into your answers, without sounding too repetitive.

*I am an emotionally stable, loving, devoted mother

*I am S12's primary caregiver. He spends 96% of his time with me.

*I am an active advocate in S12's education

*Ex has behavior patterns including severe anger, threats and false accusations against Mother.

*Efforts to co-parent have not been successful and are not likely to work without professional help to reduce Father's extreme behaviors.

Or something like that... .

Any time there is any false accusation - in court documents, in court, in statements to anyone - in my opinion, it is right to challenge that accusation immediately and clearly.  "A few minutes ago, Mr. Ex said 'Blah blah blah.'  This statement is false, and Mr. Ex has not supported it with any evidence."  "Referring to Document X, filed by Mr. Ex on Date, on page 3 he states, 'Blah blah blah.'  This statement is false and is not supported by any evidence."

And... .

"Mr. Ex has a pattern of false accusations against Mother:

* In court on Date he stated 'Blah blah blah.', which is false and not supported by evidence.

* In Document X on page 3 he stated 'Blah blah blah.', which is false and not supported by evidence.

It is not in Child's interest to be alone with someone who is likely to make such false accusations against Child's mother.  We ask that Mr. Ex's time with Child be supervised by a professional, so the professional can make sure Child does not hear any false accusations made against Mother."

[livednlearned]

"Mr. Ex has a pattern of false accusations against Mother:

* In court on Date he stated 'Blah blah blah.', which is false and not supported by evidence.

* In Document X on page 3 he stated 'Blah blah blah.', which is false and not supported by evidence.

It is not in Child's interest to be alone with someone who is likely to make such false accusations against Child's mother.  We ask that Mr. Ex's time with Child be supervised by a professional, so the professional can make sure Child does not hear any false accusations made against Mother."

Super helpful, Matt. Thank you -- linking his behavior back to S12. I need to get that point across everything single time I speak.

Gah! I need to channel all this faith you people have in me.

What would you all be doing right now if you were in my shoes? Unfortunately, because I'm dyslexic, it's really hard to read when I'm under a lot of stress, so there's no point in writing things down. I really need to commit stuff to memory. I also struggle to order calendar dates for the same reasons. But should I be doing that? Memorizing the dates of when the hearings were and what happened?

Gah again!

[livednlearned]

"Be strong and of good courage. You are leader of your people now, Joshua... . I am with you wherever you go."

Man, I'm with whirlpoollife! I guess I'm seeing you also as Joan of Arc, headed in for a medieval "ordeal" type trial. You really are the leader of your people . . . .

Bon courage!

I watched a TED talk about body language -- a friend sent it to me. About "power poses" and how to appear confident in situations where you don't feel that way. Apparently you can change your attitude by adjusting your body language. I'm not kidding when I say that the speakers says to stand in the "Wonder Woman" pose for 2 minutes in a bathroom stall to help build confidence.



So picture me doing that, ok? 5 minutes before trial, I'll be in the stall posing like Wonder Woman. 

[Matt]

linking his behavior back to S12. I need to get that point across everything single time I speak.

Yup, a really good idea - link everything to how it affects the child.

[AnotherPhoenix]

   Hi Livednlearned,

I'll be wishing the best for you tomorrow.

As you've said, your lawyer is very, very good. She's now had a lot of experience with dealing with your ex. Trust in her.

Your judge has experienced your ex's behavior first-hand.

Those are big pluses for you.

As others have stated, I think the biggest thing is to focus on why you are going for full custody: you ex has been interfering with your life and your raising of your son. He's obstructing your ability to parent your son. Your judge has seen many examples of this.

I'll be supporting you tomorrow.

AnotherPheonix     

[KateCat]

Great advice from Matt and great advice about the confident body language.

Is it correct that the trial starts on Wednesday? Then I think it would also be a great idea to put it out of your mind tomorrow, as you are already well prepared and could benefit from a moment to draw back from "cramming" and transform into the individual who will walk into court the following day . . . that Joshua guy. (I also recommend you do this the day before your dissertation defense when that day comes in the future, because it surely will.  )

[livednlearned]

I'll be wishing the best for you tomorrow.

Thank you! I really, really need all your well wishes and support.

As you've said, your lawyer is very, very good. She's now had a lot of experience with dealing with your ex. Trust in her.

Want to know how good she is? She separated from her ex in 2010, same year as me. And her ex? He's NPD. I just found out last week.

Your judge has experienced your ex's behavior first-hand.

Those are big pluses for you.

As others have stated, I think the biggest thing is to focus on why you are going for full custody: you ex has been interfering with your life and your raising of your son. He's obstructing your ability to parent your son. Your judge has seen many examples of this.

I'll be supporting you tomorrow.

I'm just hoping that I can say what I want to say, and not get turned around and tongue-tied.   

[livednlearned]

linking his behavior back to S12. I need to get that point across everything single time I speak.

Yup, a really good idea - link everything to how it affects the child.

I'm going to write some sentences here to help me. Things to help me say what I want to say, ok? Feel free everyone to chime in.

N/BPDx participates in the decision-making process, to S12's detriment. N/BPD's vendetta, his rage, and his poor judgement clouds his ability to focus on supporting S12, and as a result his involvement has had a negative effect on S12.

N/BPDx bullies, intimidates, and uses threats, just as he did with the PC, who just testified. It is not possible to make joint decisions with someone who cannot regulate his emotions and behavior, and this undermines doing what is best for S12.

N/BPDx does not have good judgement about what constitutes reasonable behavior, and does not take responsibility for his own decisions. He voluntary scrapped the 3x week Skype calls with S12, which the PC confirmed, and then makes false allegations that I am alienating S12 from his father. He also talks about those false allegations with S12. 

[Matt]

OK, now turn it around and write some positive stuff about your own parenting - what you're doing and what you want to do in the future - and how it helps S12.

(If you spend too much time on negative stuff about your ex, that won't look good.)

[livednlearned]

OK, now turn it around and write some positive stuff about your own parenting - what you're doing and what you want to do in the future - and how it helps S12.

(If you spend too much time on negative stuff about your ex, that won't look good.)

My son and I have a strong bond and I'm a loving, attentive parent. I'm the parent who takes him to church, who organizes his social calendar, who takes him to see a counselor, who meets with his teachers and the guidance counselor at school. He has a loving relationship with my family and sees them every year.

I actively seek support and services for my son, and look for solutions to make sure he succeeds in school. I have spent hundreds of hours since 2008 trying to figure out what works for him, how the process at school works, what the diagnoses mean, who has the skills to help him, both inside school and out. I set up meetings, initiate contact, and work to help him develop healthy habits and tools to help him succeed.

I believe a child should never, ever be put in the middle of a dispute between parents. I never speak ill of N/BPDx when I talk to S12. When N/BPDx shows up at events, I want S12 to avoid feeling a loyalty bind, so I tell him to go say hi to his father and tell him where I'll be when he's ready.