Facing Your ExBPD in DV Court

[Aussie0zborn]

I'm preparing for a court case opposing the restraining orders issued by police against my daughter and I. Long story short... . Together with six others we went to the house after police declined to provide the police escort originally promised to remove my personal property, home office and some business stock. The new guy (a convicted drug dealer and ex-convict) was in the house, threatened my daughter with a baseball bat, wife comes home from her school deputy principal job and punches my daughter in the face. The goon tries to punch one of my friends in the face but is restrained. Wife assaults me but misses and hits a plain clothes police officer as they approached.  Police issue restraining orders against us and don't charge against the wife for assaulting the cop. Why? Because their version of events were "more believable" and apparently there is a "history of violence" and I apparently "take and spend all her money".

My problem with the "history of violence" is that implies that she is the victim of that violence rather than the other way around. For her to really pull this one off she needs to get her kids to testify. They are not going to say how they saw her rage and attack me given the D19 walks on eggshells and has been parentified from a young age.  She is fiercely protective of her mother and would never acknowledge the major attack on me that she witnessed. From reading about psychopaths they ALWAYS bring their kids to court so I am expecting to see her kids which I don't have a problem with but it will show the extent of her sickness and vindictiveness and what she has in store for me. The fact a drug dealer moved into our house the day I left shows she doesn't consider the impact of this on her kids which is not surprising to me. 

The police also attended our house three times after I left and apparently this is "all related". I have no idea what that's about so will have to wait for court.

So, in the midst of lies and allegations of DV, has anyone got experience in facing off your exBPD in court in such adverse conditions? Even the police are against us.

I generally tell it how it is. I can easily get riled up. Last time I gave evidence in court as a witness to an accident I was my normal cool self until it was suggested that I was an idiot and saw nothing at all.  I was offended and it showed. I don't think that was a positive reaction.  So my question really is, what demeanor is best? Which demeanor is best to avoid? How cool can you be before their nonsense incenses you?

[livednlearned]

I generally tell it how it is. I can easily get riled up. Last time I gave evidence in court as a witness to an accident I was my normal cool self until it was suggested that I was an idiot and saw nothing at all.  I was offended and it showed. I don't think that was a positive reaction.  So my question really is, what demeanor is best? Which demeanor is best to avoid? How cool can you be before their nonsense incenses you?

What an awful story. Sorry to hear you have to go through this.

I was in court to get sole custody of my son. N/BPDx is a former trial lawyer, and he was representing himself, and cross-examined me on the witness stand. Interrogating me like this is what he did in our marriage, and I barely slept leading up to trial, so agitated by past memories, worried I would resort to being weak like I was in the marriage.

A parenting coordinator was on the stand first. She came across weary, but self-composed, and hardly looked at N/BPDx, just leafed through the binder in front of her. Sat very still, and when N/BPDx asked inflammatory questions, she would say, "That's what you say, Mr. N/BPDx. You say many things like this."

So I did the same thing. I didn't look at him, just listened, and found a place in the room to look at that felt safe. I paused before every answer, sometimes awkwardly so. Also, when my L was getting my testimony, many of the answers were just "yes" or "no." I probably answered 50-60 questions like that, and by the end of that run, I felt confident that my side of the story was well told.

Your situation is different -- the opposing L won't be as disordered as my ex was. He was foolish to represent himself, but too ill to recognize that. Work really hard on this -- it's good you know you have a flash point. Your demeanor in court matters a lot. Imagine that you are there to talk about plumbing, or watering plants. And remember that 75% of what happens is about legal technicalities, not your testimony. If you have a good L, he or she will protect you from situations intended to incite you.

[Matt]

Do you have an attorney?  What is she doing to prepare?

There is a lot you can do right now to make it go well.

First, get every adult who was there to testify.  If they are supporting you and willing to testify, great - have each of them talk with your attorney and make sure they will be good witnesses.

If they would be good witnesses but they don't want to testify, you might be able to subpoena them.  Tell them, "I'm sorry but my attorney says we have to do this.  She will help so it won't be too bad of an experience for you - just meet once with her in advance, then show up and tell what happened.  Nobody's going to blame you no matter how it turns out."

For the opposing party and any witness you think will support her story, consider having them deposed, so your lawyer can question them under oath before court.  Then find evidence to show anything they are saying that isn't true.

Make sure your own story is rock-solid - you know exactly what happened first, second, etc.  If anything you have said so far isn't right, be prepared to address that somehow - "That night I told the police X, but I said that wrong - it was really Y."

Practice with your attorney acting as herself - she will ask helpful questions that allow you to tell what happened.  Then practice with her as the opposing attorney - she will ask hostile questions and you'll answer just "Yes" or "No" if possible, or "I don't know" - don't elaborate, just answer as truthfully and briefly as you can.

In court, there are a few things you can do to be more relaxed and deal with difficult moments.  One is, listen carefully to other witnesses, if you are allowed to be in the room when they testify, and if they say something that isn't true, make sure you set the record straight during your testimony.

Second, if you are asked a difficult question, ask that it be repeated.  That will buy you time to think.

You can also pause to think before answering - it's OK, just don't do it all the time or you won't look honest.

And work out in advance with your attorney, that if you think a question is unfair, you will look directly at her, and she will object to it.  Even if the objection is turned down by the judge, it will buy you some time to think.

Then rely on the truth - answer every question truthfully - and that will help you be calm.  Don't think about "winning" or about the other party, think about answering all the questions truthfully - it's not really very hard!

(I'm not an attorney but I've testified under oath twice.  It wasn't hard.)

[Aussie0zborn]

Thank you so much for your replies and advice. Yes I have an attorney and we are also asking the court to grant us restraining orders against them. My legal advice is that the restraining order against my daughter will be dismissed but the court prefers to err on the side of caution and will probably grant a restraining order against me.  I'm not happy about that but there is little I can do.

The reason Im asking for advice here is that while I think I will go in there and tell the court the facts of that matter, I'm actually a sitting duck. I don't want to lose the plot, get carried away with emotion or be riled up and appear that I am hell bent on revenge for being dumped.  

I like the suggestion of finding a focal point and fixing your eyes on that. Are there any other coping strategies while in the witness box?

[livednlearned]

I focused on sitting very still. During all of the cases before mine, people were really squirmy and fidgety in their seats. Focus on keeping your body still, and find a good place where you can rest your gaze. Also, this is a bit funny, but I have really great coworkers who sent me this video about body language: www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html

They knew how nervous I was, and during one of our staff meetings the day before trial, they all stood up and did the power pose with me. Watch the video to see what I mean 

The idea is that making yourself bigger actually makes you feel big, and if you strike these poses before doing something difficult, it can actually rewire your brain. And yes, I totally did this in the bathroom before it was time for me to testify. 

Also, Matt gave me some good advice a while back about how you phrase your answers to questions that are intended to rile you up and entrap you. 

"Mr Aussize0zborn, my client says you have a past history of lying, and becoming enraged after drinking to excess."

Mr AussieOzborn: "Your client is making a false allegation that is not based on facts. There is no evidence to substantiate her claim, and it brings into question her own credibility."

Something like that. 

Court is like theater. Ls try to get a feel for what a judge will or will not allow. They test to see if they can get you to crack under pressure. The more you tell yourself that you're a "sitting duck" and speculate that court will not go well for you, the more defensive you feel, and anxious about who is going to do and say what, the less time you have to prepare to be calm and organized in your thinking. Try to sit still and focus your gaze, and think about the question before responding to evaluate how you want to answer.

[Matt]

Also, Matt gave me some good advice a while back about how you phrase your answers to questions that are intended to rile you up and entrap you. 

"Mr Aussize0zborn, my client says you have a past history of lying, and becoming enraged after drinking to excess."

Mr AussieOzborn: "Your client is making a false allegation that is not based on facts. There is no evidence to substantiate her claim, and it brings into question her own credibility."

Something like that. 

Yup - this helped me a lot.

It's called a "pivot", and if you listen carefully, you'll hear politicians doing it at times.

First you listen to the question, and you recognize that it's hostile, like the example LnL gave:  "Mr. Ozborn, my client says that you have a history of lying, and that you become enraged after drinking to excess."

If you listen carefully, you'll hear not just one but several unfair things in that question:

* First - it's not even a question!  But the lawyer stares at you and pauses and waits for you to respond.  You can look back at him but you don't need to respond at all til he asks a question.  And if you do that - look at him but say nothing - pretty soon both he and everyone else will get it - he tried to trap you and you didn't fall for it - and he'll look like a fool.  Judge:  "Mr. Attorney, do you have any more questions or shall I excuse Mr. Ozborn?".

* Second - it's two subjects - lying and drunken rages.  You don't need to respond to them both.  Choose the one you find easier to answer.  So if he asks, "What do you say to those accusations?" you can pick one or the other... .

* ... . and unpack the assumption.  Take the "lying" part:  the assumption is that because your ex says you're lying, you must be lying.  But no evidence has been given, and it's not a true statement.  So you do the pivot - first you state your truth very clearly - "Your client's statement is false and she has presented no evidence to support it." and then you pivot from defense to offense - from denying the accusation to putting the focus on her - "I think it's wrong for you and your client to make false accusations like this in court."  Now the bright light is off your "lying" and on their "false accusations".

* If you can handle both parts without a pause, that would be even better:  "First let me address the accusation that I have a history of lying.  That is a vague accusation that you and your client haven't supported with evidence, and it's not true.  Making false accusations like that in court is wrong and I will consult my attorney about what can be done to hold you and your client responsible.  Now let me address the accusation that I have become enraged after drinking too much.  That accusation is also false, and you have not presented any evidence to support it.  My understanding is that it is unethical to make false accusations like that in court, and I will consult my attorney about how you and your client might be held accountable for saying something like that."

Consult your attorney about the best ways to do this - what is considered proper in the court where you live.  Usually you want to keep it super-short.  But when there is a hostile question which contains a false assumption, I think you have to take it in these two steps:  deny the accusation and point out that there is no supporting evidence, and then pivot to put the accuser on the defensive not you.

[livednlearned]

* First - it's not even a question!  But the lawyer stares at you and pauses and waits for you to respond.  You can look back at him but you don't need to respond at all til he asks a question.  And if you do that - look at him but say nothing - pretty soon both he and everyone else will get it - he tried to trap you and you didn't fall for it - and he'll look like a fool.  Judge:  "Mr. Attorney, do you have any more questions or shall I excuse Mr. Ozborn?"

The parenting coordinator in my case did this at least a dozen times. N/BPDx would make this long statements, and PC would say, "Are you asking me a question?" My L objected repeatedly when N/BPDx did that, saying "Your Honor, N/BPDx is testifying instead of asking a question."

It was always sustained.

He did this weird thing where he kept having her read an email he wrote. PC would say, "Mr. N/BPDx, I'm not sure why you want me to read this email you wrote. Is the question to verify that this is a sentence you wrote?"

It took all the wind out of N/BPDx's sails.

[Matt]

* First - it's not even a question!  But the lawyer stares at you and pauses and waits for you to respond.  You can look back at him but you don't need to respond at all til he asks a question.  And if you do that - look at him but say nothing - pretty soon both he and everyone else will get it - he tried to trap you and you didn't fall for it - and he'll look like a fool.  Judge:  "Mr. Attorney, do you have any more questions or shall I excuse Mr. Ozborn?"

The parenting coordinator in my case did this at least a dozen times. N/BPDx would make this long statements, and PC would say, "Are you asking me a question?" My L objected repeatedly when N/BPDx did that, saying "Your Honor, N/BPDx is testifying instead of asking a question."

It was always sustained.

He did this weird thing where he kept having her read an email he wrote. PC would say, "Mr. N/BPDx, I'm not sure why you want me to read this email you wrote. Is the question to verify that this is a sentence you wrote?"

It took all the wind out of N/BPDx's sails.

Yeah, attorneys have a bunch of tricks to make you uncomfortable, but if you remember the basics - it's the attorney's job to ask a question, and you aren't obligated to help him out in any way - you can just hear the question, and then answer it briefly - that can make it a lot easier.

"Mr. Ozborn, isn't it true that you drive a white pickup truck?" - "No."  Not "No, I sold it last week because it smelled bad."  Just "No."  Make the lawyer do his job - it's much easier on you and less stressful.

[livednlearned]

Also -- and this is super important -- don't roll your eyes when your ex says something you don't agree with! Don't sigh loudly, or try to communicate anything nonverbally to the court or to the judge.

I saw a handful of cases while I've been in court waiting my turn, and the judge harshly chastised a dad for throwing up his hands, and for pushing back his chair, and otherwise trying to show nonverbally that he did not agree with the testimony or answers being given.

He told the dad that he would hold him in contempt of court if he continued to draw attention to himself like that.

If you're a very physical person, definitely find a neutral spot to focus your attention on, don't have eye contact with your ex when she's talking, and sit as impassively as you can.

Oh, and relax, but not too much 

If you are allowed to take notes while sitting next to your L, do that. It will help you focus on what is happening, and keep your reactions contained.

[Matt]

If you are allowed to take notes while sitting next to your L, do that. It will help you focus on what is happening, and keep your reactions contained.

Yes, and there some other good reasons to do this:

If someone says something that's not true, or that isn't fair, and if you write it down - as close to word-for-word as you can - and read it back before it's your turn, you can refer to it when appropriate.

"Mr. Ozborn, isn't it true that you go into a rage when you drink too much?"

"No, it's not.  This morning I heard Ms. Ex say that I did that on January 4, but that is not true - not on January 4 or any other day.  In fact I was out of town the first week of January - I could even prove it with my airline receipt - so there is no way she could have seen me do what she said I did."

(Again, usually best to keep answers to hostile questions short, but in some cases - if you know the details very well - you might strengthen your answer with some specifics.)

Also, it could be helpful to your attorney.  If you write down exactly what somebody said, and then when there's a break, show her your notes, and give her the truth, she will be better prepared to cross-examine the person who made the false statement, or to ask you questions that will let you tell what happened.

[pallavirajsinghani]

When dealing with people who trigger anxiety in me, I figured out that it helped me to look at their forehead while they were talking to me (an in extreme situations, I look at their noses... . which makes me smile inwardly a bit as the noses are the funniest part of human anatomy in my opinion).  This gives the appearance of me looking at them while replying, but actually I am not.  Especially given the physical distance between the conversing parties in the court, this becomes a useful tactic.

It will take some practice though.

[Aussie0zborn]

Thank you all for the replies so far. I finished my statement for court today and reading it back I realised that this story is not believable for these reasons... .

1. She assaulted my daughter and the cop but the police issue restraining orders against us

2. if you consider that she managed to pull that off, by getting the police to sympathise with her and ignore her assault of the cop then what chance have we got? Pulling the wool over the police's eyes simply paves the way for her to say whatever she likes.

3. the whole story of the relationsip is uneblieveable - my T says I should write a a book as my story is better than the ":)ays Of Our Lives" TV series.

Hopefully the court will see through all the nonsense. I will read and re-read everybody's suggestions and practise them - especially the power pose ;-)

[Matt]

It's all about what the court will see, in the documents and in the courtroom.

Will the other adults who were there with you be available to testify?  What will they say?

Is there evidence that your ex has made false statements in the past?  Has she changed her story about what happened that time?

Is there any physical evidence as to what happened?

Can you subpoena the officer(s) who issued the restraining orders?  He might say, "I didn't know what happened but I issued the RO so nobody would get hurt in the future."  An RO may not be a "finding of fact", just a way to keep everybody safe.

What does your lawyer say about this?

[Aussie0zborn]

Matt, we gave statements to the police. My wife and her lover (a convicted drug dealer) confronted eight of us head on so I don't think they were scared. They gave statements too. The police found that they were "more believable" than us. The police officer refused to use the lover's surname in the court documents because "he is not required to".  The officer that was struck decided not to press charges. Work that one out. 

My BPD wife is the deputy principal and police liaison officer at the local school. To get out of the assault charges she convinced the police that I take and spend all her money and that there is a history of DV in the marital home. She also said she wet her pants from fear when she accosted us. She had scratches on her chest apparently and I'm sure they are going to say my daughter did this to her.

I just did the figures tonight and in our first year alone I spent $87,000 on her, her kids, and the house. I haven't looked at my credit card statements yet so we can add to that.  The sad thing is that I realized that she has NEVER once transferred money from her bank account to my bank account. Never. Yet the police take her word for it.

Courts prefer to issue restraining orders just to be on the safe side.  The problem here is that we have an injustice. A win here is a win for justice and it will help the healing process.

[Matt]

Matt, we gave statements to the police. My wife and her lover (a convicted drug dealer) confronted eight of us head on so I don't think they were scared. They gave statements too. The police found that they were "more believable" than us. The police officer refused to use the lover's surname in the court documents because "he is not required to".  The officer that was struck decided not to press charges. Work that one out. 

So that means there are at least 11 potential witnesses:

* You

* The other 7 people she confronted

* Her

* Her boyfriend

* The police officer

Your attorney may also be able to depose some or all of them beforehand, to find out what they will say, and to have time between depositions and the court appearance to prove anything they are saying that is false.

The officer can be asked what he based the "more believable" on - something objective or just his subjective opinion?  He could also be confronted with details of the boyfriend's criminal history and asked, "Is that someone you find to be believable?".

Your ex should be easy to de-construct on the stand - depose her first to get her story on the record, and then assemble evidence showing it's not true, and present that evidence in court.

The other adults who were there - if they will testify voluntarily, great, but if not they should be subpoena'd, in a friendly way, so the truth will be clear to the court.

Does your lawyer have experience with cases like this?

[ForeverDad]

Be aware that what we have is a judicial system, not a justice system.  Yes, put your best foot forward, be proactive to give evidence that supports you, but irrespective of what the legal system concludes, you will know within yourself that you did no wrong.  You can Gift that to yourself, you surely won't get it from the pwBPD and perhaps not even from the system.

[Forward2free]

What is your country of residence?

In Australia it's exceptionally difficult to get an RO dropped, and more often than not, they will award the RO to err on the side of caution.

I have taken out 4 RO's personally against my BPD/Nxh, defended 7 against me from BPD/Nxh and had one taken out against me by BPD/Nxh's GF at the time.

She was a scared pretty young 19 year old, with accusations against me based on BPD/Nxh's lies, not the truth, and they awarded one for her against me. They can't measure fear, and if they look scared and act scared, the court favours them, truth or not.

In Aust, you can Accept the order against you and admit fault; consent to the order (undertaking) without admitting to fault; or fight it.

Most often, lawyers here recommend consenting and admitting no fault - then you just have to keep out of trouble whilst the order is in place. This is the easiest option and apparently works better if you want yours accepted against her - you both consent.

Mine were all negotiated out of court - BPD/Nxh never had the guts to try his lies out on the magistrate, but would submit pages of defamatory lies against me.

The one I had against me from his GF is recycled verbatim against my police record (empty accept for that) and even though I consented without admitting fault, that's printed right at the bottom. It will always mar my record and that sucks.

Has she done this before, with her previous boyfriend/s or husband/s? pwBPD usually have a history of similar events, and I would be surprised this is the first time she has played the victim card. Courts don't like repeat offenders that try to abuse the court system. BPD/Nxh had no less than 17 RO's against ex girlfriends, ex wives, mother-in-law etc. He knew the court system well and uses it to his advantage to control and abuse.

Please ensure that you always have a recorder or video with you if you need to go to the house or approach her again or anywhere she could approach you. It could save so much heartache and legal woes. I prevented a police charge against me because I recorded a conversation that BPD/Nxh GF had with me and it completely contradicted her version of events. For $90 I saved myself a world more of pain.

[Aussie0zborn]

Kormilda, I am in Australia and your description of the legal process is exactly as I understand it. We had a chance to consent to the orders but I know that this is an abuse of the system and will fight it tooth and nail.

Matt, my lawyer is a no nonsense guy who knows the law backwards. He is not into selling false hope to fill his pockets but our approach is that this is an abuse of the system and that the police were incompetent.

Two of my witnesses preferred not to give statements to the police that day and I hadn't seen them or updated them until yesterday - they couldn't believe my wife was not charged with assault. As a consequence they both offered to give evidence in court.

One of them told me on the day that he would be of no use to me as he has a criminal record and he didn't want to taint my case. Since we found out the new guy is a convicted drug dealer and the  police relied on his evidence, my guy's criminal record is insignificant. He can't wait to give evidence.

She is no stranger to restraining orders. In a statement she made in relation to a punch up with her second husband, she says he attacked her with a knife but the knife for some reason was in her hand.  Her explanation of how the knife ended up in her hand was pure BS and left me wondering just who attacked who with the knife.  They have a child together so I can't ask him to be involved.

I'm not intent on destroying her, I am just deflecting the destruction she wishes to wreak on us.  The replies so far have been a great help. I am now so ready for this.

[Matt]

Cool - a couple of good witnesses will help a lot.

Good luck and please tell us how it goes!

Matt

[Forward2free]

It certainly sounds like you've covered everything so good on you.

The police told me in my case that they didn't charge BPD/Nxh with "ABC" because it was unlikely to be a case they would win, and they have been told to only write up the charges that are winning cases.

Hopefully they get the details sorted in your case, seems strange that they didn't charge her due to her school association - if she has previous convictions it should help you too, although chances are they may not renew her working with children check in time. Not your issue though, just her consequence.

Good luck

[Aussie0zborn]

Everything about how it turned out is strange. She wasn't charged because the police believed she was the victim in the marriage and has always been a person in need of protection - this had nothing to do with what happened on the day. She has no previous convictions as enablers like me have seen to that. I'll keep you posted.