BPDbiodad abandoned kids, remarried. do u let them visit his family?

[How to communicate after a contentious divorce...]

So SO's kids are due for visit in a few weeks w/ their bio BPDdad's aunts. The kids haven't seen their dad in over 2 years. No contact,  no calls, emails, etc. They don't know but he remarried recently.  He's also on supervised visit order s. Not that it matters since he abandoned them.

would you let kids go visit family? Not sure if BPD bio dad will be there. He could be, but wasn't last 2 times. Also, I'm sure hearing from aunts about their dad's new wifie (she's 20 years younger) won't be well received.  I forsee potential for drama galore.

at the same time, the aunts are the only ones from BPD biodad's family that reachout. The kids miss their extended family on their dad's side.

Not up to me, but SO is asking for advice. What would you do? The visit would be for a week, about an hour away from home, maybe two. If you let them go, would you tell them about the new "step mom"? Being surprised by news like could be traumatic.

[Waddams]

So SO's kids are due for visit in a few weeks w/ their bio BPDdad's aunts. The kids haven't seen their dad in over 2 years. No contact,  no calls, emails, etc. They don't know but he remarried recently.  He's also on supervised visit order s. Not that it matters since he abandoned them.

would you let kids go visit family? Not sure if BPD bio dad will be there. He could be, but wasn't last 2 times. Also, I'm sure hearing from aunts about their dad's new wifie (she's 20 years younger) won't be well received.  I forsee potential for drama galore.

at the same time, the aunts are the only ones from BPD biodad's family that reachout. The kids miss their extended family on their dad's side.

Not up to me, but SO is asking for advice. What would you do? The visit would be for a week, about an hour away from home, maybe two. If you let them go, would you tell them about the new "step mom"? Being surprised by news like could be traumatic.

[Nope]

The worst thing on the kids would be surprises. I'd make sure I had a short and calm conversation with the kids about the fact that their dad has remarried. I wouldn't use the term step mom for someone they've never met and may not meet.

I see nothing wrong with the kids visiting with the other side of the family provided you have no concerns about how they will be cared for while there.

[Waddams]

I see nothing wrong with the kids visiting with the other side of the family provided you have no concerns about how they will be cared for while there.

That's the issue.  SO is concerned that the aunts are being a bit weird and evasive in conversations about the visit.  The suspicion is that the kids will be there, and he's on a supervised visitation order for a reason.  We suspect this family reunion (in a place where none of the out of town family lives, as well as in a place where the kid's dad doesn't even live anymore as he moved out of state) is more for a celebration for the new couple as the new wife is from here.

SO hasn't been told where the kids will be staying, who will be there, what they will be doing, etc.  We don't need to know every detail, but giving us an outline for the basics such as sleeping arrangements, contact info., etc. is required.  SO has asked but has not received a response. 

We think the family is trying to do an end run around the supervised visit orders.  One of the aunts did it once before and SO busted them.  Took her about a month to get the kids to settle down again after that.  Their dad got them alone and started interrogating them about court papers, statements, accusing them of a bunch of lies, badmouthing mom, etc. and it turned into a real mess.  At the time, he hadn't seen them in almost a year, and he instantly went into BPD/ASPD mode as soon as he was alone with them.  That was a little over 2 years ago and SO hasn't heard anything from anyone on his side of the kid's family since.

SO says she's going to ask some pointed questions and if she doesn't get straight answers, then the kids aren't going. 

[Matt]

How old are the kids?

If I didn't know the people very well, I wouldn't let my kids stay with them.  I would take them to visit, and stay with them, and then take them home.  After a few visits like that, if things are going well, and you feel like you know them and you aren't concerned, then think about an overnight.

Leaving kids with strangers overnight seems risky.  Leaving aside everything about the biodad, his new wife, etc., these are people the kids don't know and you don't know - strangers.

[Waddams]

Kids are D16, S14, D13, D10.

SO talked with SD16 and SS14 about it this morning.  She called me to discuss while I was at work.  Apparently when she mentioned the new wife's name, SD16 and SS14 said they knew her from before the no contact happened.  I'm not sure how they took they're dad getting remarried without telling them, inviting them to the wedding, etc. as I wasn't there, but I know it's hard for them.   SO explained about the invite to visit a few days with their dad's family, and was honest that about her concerns. The kids, I'm told without being prompted, said if things got stressful on them and bad things started happening they'd just call and ask to be picked up.  SO says they basically said they want to see their dad, they're aunts/uncles, etc., but they also know what their dad has done in the past is very abusive and they'd just call for help if they needed to. 

Seems like a very grown up response.  And D16 and S14 are very good kids.  I'm proud to have 'em around me and my S9.

SD13 and SD10 are very good kids too, but they're not mature enough for most of this subject.  If they go, they have to be told about the remarriage beforehand but they wouldn't be entrusted with having to handle anything else, other than that if things get bad knowing their older siblings will call for help and we'll come get them.  (different subject, but SD10 and SD13 got into a fight last night, and then ended up crying because something in the follow up reminded them both of their dad's punishments which involved beatings with a iron fireplace coal shovel).

Anyway, decisions still aren't made.  SO has to talk to the aunt she's coordinating with for more information before making further decisions. 

Incidentally, my uPDxw has been blowing up my phone with texts this morning (she's pissed i let S9 hang with the other kids and SO today instead of taking him to uPDxw's house while I was at work today), the kids were arguing about playing the board game Risk and calling me about their arguments, etc. - Part of me right now just wants to say screw it, tell work I'm taking a few days off, and head for some place in the mountains where there is no internet, no cell service, and really no or very few people.  So tired of having to figure out how to make everything work for other people, and then being fought every step of the way.  Is just a little cooperation so hard?  Note - this is not directed at my SO.  She's trying very hard to work with me to make all this work.  Rant done.

[livednlearned]

How about ask the aunt to put things in writing. Where the kids are staying, who is staying with them. Underscore that there is a supervised visitation order in place, and that the family needs to honor that. Let them know that if the dad is going to make a visit, you need to know when, for how long, who will be supervising, and then ask that the kids call after the visit. Or maybe you arrange to see the kids that night after they visit with their dad.

Flush out the details, and see if the family can step up and be transparent. If they're reasonable people, they will understand. If they're not, they'll be evasive and try to pull a fast one.

If you trust the oldest kids to call and ask for help, and feel that the benefits outweigh the risks, then enlist them to take care of the youngest and make sure no one gets split up, that they stick together and look out for each other. Daily communication, etc.

EDIT: I would also revisit the earlier instance of the aunt doing an end run. Explain that the kids were in bad shape after that visit, and that as much as it would be great for the kids to see extended family, there needs to be reassurances.

My guess is they won't like the boundaries.

[Waddams]

My guess is they won't like the boundaries.

LnL - Yup to this!  I totally agree.

I think this exercise is really more for SO to show she's willing to facilitate visitation within the boundaries of the supervised visitation orders.  If they don't want to honor those orders, then she can document her willingness to work with them in a way that provides for visitation but still protects the kids from further abuse.  They can claim she's obstructing things later all they want, but the documentation will tell the story it tells.

If biodad doesn't like the supervised visitation orders, then he needs to comply with the terms that are already set in the orders, fulfill he was ordered to do, get caught up on CS, and actually participate in supervised visitation for an extended time period to demonstrate he's willing to subordinate himself to the rules and orders set by the court.  Until that happens, I support SO totally if she says "no" to any of this other crap they try to pull.

If this situation falls through or causes more needless drama, I've also told SO I'd support her if she decided she just wasn't going to engage with any of them anymore until Biodad gets his act together.  And if Biodad never does, then they won't see the kids while they are still minors and subject to SO's final authority.

[Matt]

Could you let the older two go, but not for too long, and see how that goes?

And if it goes well, then maybe all four the next time, or some of them - four all at once seems like a lot.

Low risk to drop of the older two, higher risk to drop off all four... .

[Waddams]

Could you let the older two go, but not for too long, and see how that goes?

That would make sense if visitation occurred on frequency higher than once every year or two.  The kids literally haven't seen any of these people in 2 years.  And it was about a year since the saw any of them before that.

I've been with SO for 3 years now.  I can count on one hand how many time the Biodad and his family have exercised visitation, and have fingers (multiple).  If we don't send them all, it will be a long time before they have the chance again.

I love the suggestion, though.  If visitation were more frequent, or if it appeared it might become more frequent, this would be a great way to go.

I'm not advocating this to SO, but can anyone tell me what they think of just telling the other side that no visitation resumes initially outside of the supervision of a therapist that is properly licensed, trained, and other wise qualified to guide reunification of kids estranged from family members?

[Matt]

I think if you and your SO genuinely believe that it would be in the kids' interest for this "reunification" to take place more gradually, and with supervision, that's what you should do.  You're fortunate in that there are two of you, and two heads are better than one.

I don't think you should take anything else much into account - not what the kids want, not what Biodad wants, not what his family wants, and not even the letter of the court order.  Give 99% weight to what you and SO truly believe is best, and you won't go far wrong.

I especially think you don't need to give lots of weight to the fact that the kids don't see Biodad or his family very often.  That's their choice, if I understand correctly, and it says volumes about who they are as people.  They made their bed.

If the older kids want to see them, and you think that's reasonably safe, and both you and the kids are comfortable with the idea of cutting the visit short if they choose that, that seems a very low-risk thing to do.

But if you and SO just don't feel good about the younger kids being there overnight without you around, and/or some form of supervision, then go with your judgment.

[livednlearned]

I'm not advocating this to SO, but can anyone tell me what they think of just telling the other side that no visitation resumes initially outside of the supervision of a therapist that is properly licensed, trained, and other wise qualified to guide reunification of kids estranged from family members?

My experience with "just telling" people how things are going to be usually doesn't go over too well 

If they are reasonable, caring people, and you say that you're concerned about the kids, and have been thinking of ways that might help the kids process the estrangement and reunification (which are kinda jargon-y words, imo), then that might open a dialog about what's best for the kids. Maybe you say you've heard of counselors who specialize in these kinds of things, and it could get this visit off to a good start to have someone facilitate. See if the relatives are open to thinking about ways to support the kids.

[Matt]

I'm not advocating this to SO, but can anyone tell me what they think of just telling the other side that no visitation resumes initially outside of the supervision of a therapist that is properly licensed, trained, and other wise qualified to guide reunification of kids estranged from family members?

My experience with "just telling" people how things are going to be usually doesn't go over too well 

If they are reasonable, caring people, and you say that you're concerned about the kids, and have been thinking of ways that might help the kids process the estrangement and reunification (which are kinda jargon-y words, imo), then that might open a dialog about what's best for the kids. Maybe you say you've heard of counselors who specialize in these kinds of things, and it could get this visit off to a good start to have someone facilitate. See if the relatives are open to thinking about ways to support the kids.

I guess I'll offer a different view, but it's based only on what has worked for me - not saying this is the right approach for everybody.

Most situations like this - not this specific situation, but questions of what will be best for the kids - the way they are usually resolved, in my case, is that I decide what I think is best - often after consulting with my D17 and/or S16, and occasionally after consulting with their BPD mom - but it's really me deciding what will be best.  And then I communicate it to the kids and their mom by e-mail, with a few simple words of explanation, like "Since D17 is very busy these days... . " or "Since the kids are doing very well in school... . ".

What I'm saying is, I learned not to make a proposal to my ex, and not to ask her what she thinks would be best - though I sometimes bring up the subject and genuinely listen to her input, and let her know I respect it.  I've learned to state it as, "Since D17 is very busy these days, I don't think it will work for her to go with you to see your family this week." - that is, I'm pretty assertive, with still the opportunity for my ex to speak up and disagree, and then I have to hear her and work it out.  But she almost always either says "OK" or nothing at all - it's rare that she pushes back, and when she does, it's for a good reason.

I think the reason this works is that it takes almost all the burden off her.  She doesn't have to take any responsibility, since it's me figuring out what will be best.  And I believe she trusts me to usually come up with a good plan.

So... . if I was in your situation, and I decided that unsupervised contact isn't wise, I would say, "For right now, because you haven't had time with the kids for a couple of years, I think it will be best for you to spend time with the two older kids, and with your parents, and see how that goes, and then we can talk about the younger kids, and overnights."  (Or whatever you decide are the right first steps.)

I would not show too much weakness - you and SO are the kids' parents, and you're working well together, and making good judgments, and informing others what those judgments are.  There is nothing to be timid about - when it comes to your kids, you are the experts, not their father and not his family.

And I would not argue about it;  if their father or his family make a good point that you hadn't thought of, you can always change your mind, but once you say what you have decided, it's usually best not to talk about it anymore, or give the impression that it's still up for debate.

[livednlearned]

Good points, Matt.

I interpret your approach to be slightly different than what I thought Waddams was suggesting. Telling the family members that no visitation will resume until a properly licensed, trained, and qualified therapist guides the reunification sounds more like an order from court. I would guess the family members would respond as though this was an overreach, and it would potentially rile people up. Matt's approach has a middle ground feel to it. "This is my take on what's best for the kids." That seems different than "No visitation until a third-party observes the family."

Also, the assumption is that these are reasonable, caring people who are concerned about the kids. Which might not be the case... .

[Matt]

Good points, Matt.

I interpret your approach to be slightly different than what I thought Waddams was suggesting. Telling the family members that no visitation will resume until a properly licensed, trained, and qualified therapist guides the reunification sounds more like an order from court. I would guess the family members would respond as though this was an overreach, and it would potentially rile people up. Matt's approach has a middle ground feel to it. "This is my take on what's best for the kids." That seems different than "No visitation until a third-party observes the family."

Also, the assumption is that these are reasonable, caring people who are concerned about the kids. Which might not be the case... .

Yeah, that's a key point - whether you know them well enough and have good confidence in the people who will be taking care of the kids.

If the kids were very small, you wouldn't consider leaving them with people you don't know well.  The older kids sound like they are comfortable making their own judgments in the moment;  you still wouldn't want to leave them with people you think are dangerous, but the idea that "We'll call you to pick us up if things aren't going well." seems very sensible, especially when it comes from the kids themselves.

The younger two are kind of in a middle range, between completely at risk and old enough to take care of themselves.  So how you view Biodad's family is super important... .

[Waddams]

Yeah, that's a key point - whether you know them well enough and have good confidence in the people who will be taking care of the kids.

My only direct experience with them has been to see one aunt do try to help do an end around the supervised visitation order and the same aunt give false testimony at a TPO hearing.  SO thought at the time she was just parrotting what BPDbiodad had told her for years and didn't know better, but I'm not certain that the truth of certain allegations was too hard to figure out on one's own anyway.  SO ended up proving her testimony was not true.

My only other direct knowledge is SO plays the voice mails from the other aunt she' communicating with for the visit (and in past visits).  It's always "hey SO, we're gonig to get the kids for such and such dates... . "  Never asking.  No acknowledgement of SO's position of authority as the kid's mother.

I only give my opinion when SO asks, otherwise I keep my mouth shut, but if it were my kid and the other side acted like that (Oh wait my uPDxw does!) I'd handle things very differently than SO does.  She drags things out and is kind of passive.  She says she's going to ask if the kids Biodad will be there, and go through all these iterations with them at first.  I told her since she asked me what I thought, I thought that she should be more bold and assertive and just tell them that they have to provide information regarding travel arrangements, pick up/drop off times, where the kids are staying, who they are staying with, and instead of asking about their biodad, I'd just state that the kids are to have no contact with their father outside of the boundaries of the current, standing court orders regarding supervised visitation.  If they can't comply, then no visit.  Basically, lay down the law and assert her authority of her kids with these people.  I don't think they respect her very much, but that's based on very limited direct experience. 

Given it's been so long since the last time they contacted her about seeing the kids though, I think that says something about all this too.  There's an aunt that lives 45 minutes away from us.  That alone makes me question whether these are safe people for the kids.

[livednlearned]

What does the supervised visitation order stipulate? Who is authorized to do the supervision? Is there concern that SO will be in violation of the order? If no, then I'd just send a simple email like Matt suggested.

If it was me, and if these details were in play, I would say no to the visit. They want to see the kids? Make an effort and come to you, spend the day, then let the kids come home and make sense of things at your house. If everyone behaves, then the kids can do something with them the next day.

The aunts have already shown your SO how they do things. And they've given no reason to believe they'll be any different.

[Matt]

If it was me, and if these details were in play, I would say no to the visit. They want to see the kids? Make an effort and come to you, spend the day, then let the kids come home and make sense of things at your house. If everyone behaves, then the kids can do something with them the next day.

That's exactly how it looks to me too.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement - because there is some blood relation, therefore the kids should spend a whole week with us.  Makes no sense.  Based on their behavior, they aren't close to the kids and they aren't 100% safe.  That's what counts, not blood.

[Waddams]

If it was me, and if these details were in play, I would say no to the visit. They want to see the kids? Make an effort and come to you, spend the day, then let the kids come home and make sense of things at your house. If everyone behaves, then the kids can do something with them the next day.

That's exactly how it looks to me too.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement - because there is some blood relation, therefore the kids should spend a whole week with us.  Makes no sense.  Based on their behavior, they aren't close to the kids and they aren't 100% safe.  That's what counts, not blood.

I agree with this.  

I guess another issue with this is with SO herself.  The kid's biodad is on supervised visits for a reason.  The order just states the supervisor has to be agreed to by both parties.  Since she caught his family covering for him circumventing the order, she's not willing to agree to family being the supervisors.  She says she'll only agree for visitation with biodad to take place at local DV shelter that also facilitates supervised visits with the court and court approved T's as supervisors.  Biodad and family have balked, hence no visitation.  Nobody's gone back to court to argue it out either, so it's just a stalemate now until somebody comes up with spare cash for a L.

Me personally, I don't think biodad is interested at all, and therefore arguing about who the supervisor can be is mostly a moot point aside from the yearly to biyearly drama episodes like this.

I just wonder if SO is exposing herself to future legal risk by trying to require a high level of responsible supervisor when the orders don't specify that.  They don't not specify it either.  It's vague.  But if they end up in court again, the other side will claim she's blocking access and use instances like this to try to illustrate it.  I wonder if they might end up having a leg to stand on since the orders are so vague.  I think it's not in the kid's interest to do this visit with these circumstances present, but the legalities around it are definitely not clear to me.  And there's money to consult a L for advice either.  SO has a lot of emotion tied up in this too, and there's a part of her that is like "those people are never having anything to do with my kids again!".  She's trying to be rational and not let that attitude govern, but I can tell it's hard and it's effecting her.

I guess the best SO can do is what she thinks is best, explain it to the judge later if challenged, stand by the decision, and see how the judge takes it.

I believe she's now told all the kids their biodad is remarried though.  They were all rather subdued last night.  SO went to work and I was on my own with them.  They were a bit more clingy to me than usual.  And not as high energy as they usually were.  Seemed like they were looking for some extra TLC and comforting.  We played Risk and then watched a movie together.

[Matt]

I see a couple of issues here with SO.

First, FOG.  Trying to be nice, to placate others, and not sticking with what SO believes is right.  It's a problem most of us deal with, and it's hard to get past.  That's one big reason why we come here.

The other issue is the legalistic one:  Will SO be punished by the court for doing what she believes is right, if it's not clear in the order whether what she is saying is correct?  My own view - I'm not an attorney and have only my own case to judge on, plus others discussed here - my own view is that it's very unlikely the court will punish her for being careful who the kids are left with.

I would suggest that she offer a few reasonable options by e-mail, like those discussed in this thread.  A few hours with you and the in-laws, and/or biodad;  maybe the older kids first and then the younger kids later;  maybe at your place, or a place near yours;  etc.  Offer some reasonable options that you and SO truly feel good about - by e-mail - so you clearly aren't blocking contact, and there is a record of that.  Don't let these people you barely know dictate their terms - offer options and let them respond as they will.

If they don't respond, the issue is over and you just need to tell the kids exactly what happened and let it drop.

If they respond positively to one of your ideas, or if they suggest something else that you feel fine with, then great - follow through and enable contact.

If they want to argue, you don't need to engage in that - end the discussion.  You offered sensible options and they didn't accept them or offer something reasonable, so that's that - no contact for now.

(And remind your SO that she is very welcome here!)

[livednlearned]

I guess I don't see how this would be complicated for a lawyer to present in court.

The order pretty clearly sees the dad is handful. The language is somewhat vague, but clear that both sides have to agree. Biodad's family tried to circumvent the supervision completely. Kids were a mess. Mom then says, Ok, supervision has to be above board at a DV shelter.

The extended family is the one that would have to climb out of the hole, not your SO.

Also, the family isn't part of the order. It's the dad. Your SO can say no to extended family all she wants -- there's no order stopping her.

[Matt]

I guess I don't see how this would be complicated for a lawyer to present in court.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking.

I believed my kids should see a counselor.  Theoretically I should have gotten my stbX to agree, but I knew that she would just want to fight over it.  So I talked with the school counselor and got a referral - so I couldn't be accused of shopping for someone to take my side - and I just took the kids to see her.  I didn't tell their mom, but I also didn't tell them, ":)on't tell your mom."

Later, my wife's lawyer tried to make an issue of it.  All I had to say was, "I believed it was in the kids' interests to see a counselor, so I got a referral and took them.  And they have clearly benefited from it, and nobody has been harmed."  The court not only sided with me, but also made my wife pay part of the counseling costs.

Lesson:  If you do what you believe is right, and if you're prepared to explain what you did and why it was in the kids' interests, and if you are seen as the reasonable and wise parent, you have little to worry about.

[Waddams]

Lesson:  If you do what you believe is right, and if you're prepared to explain what you did and why it was in the kids' interests, and if you are seen as the reasonable and wise parent, you have little to worry about.

Definitely agree with this. 

Just speaking as someone that has literally been sued for doing just this, even with it coming out okay and the judge siding w/ me in the past, I guess I'm just a bit weary because while my experiences with family court have not been bad per se, I still try to figure out a way to head off even the crazy making, irrational, not based on evidence, pure lies/manipulation/etc. stuff because my experience has been to just stand up and put your foot down and the other side is so entitled/enraged they file court paperwork against you just to punish you.  I think they know they aren't going to win and they don't care.  They just want to hurt you any way they can. 

Even though I've done rather well so far, I don't like paying lawyers thousands of my hard earned dollars.  It's cost me so much, and continues to, and I'm weary.  I have no savings, have had to let my old house fall into a state of big disrepair and eventually had to short sell it, drive crappy cars, can't get a dental issue I'm having issues with fixed, keep heading deeper into debt, and agonize over spending a measely $20.  And I make $80k plus a year (gross).  My basic expenses are safely less than my after taxes income.  And I can't afford even a basic go home and stay at parent's house vacation because of all the I'm having to pay for dealing with crap from disordered people.  And if I don't shell out the cash, kids literally don't eat, go to school, etc.  It's f***ing ridiculous.   

It's not fair, but it is reality, so I try to be as careful as possible.  Trying to not stir up the hornets nest because even when I win, it still costs me.  The line of thinking definitely colors my judgements sometimes, as well as advice I give to others. 

Of course, maybe the problem is because I haven't to date just bitten the bullet and taken the big hit in expenses to win a legal case with orders strong enough that I don't have to deal with the crap anymore.  I'm reminded of in Ender's Game when Ender continues to beat on the kid after he's won the fight.  He says he was making sure that fight was over, but also winning any future fights with the kid and his friends before they had a chance to happen.  Maybe I just need to make the big fight, win once and for all, and instead of being the better person, be mean as h#ll and destroy these idiots to the point they can't muster up resources for starting other crap that costs me big expenses again in the future. 

Sorry.  Rant done.

[Matt]

The book is way better than the movie.

[GaGrl]

The book is way better than the movie.

Would have been nice to have read the book on NPD/BPD and not have had to "live the movie... . ", huh?

[Matt]

The book is way better than the movie.

Would have been nice to have read the book on NPD/BPD and not have had to "live the movie... . ", huh?

I wouldn't have finished the book.  I would have thought it was too surreal to be interesting.

[Waddams]

I haven't read the book yet.  Intend to.  It's been on my list for years.  Given how many other SciFi/Fantasy books I read (yup, I'm a big nerd), I sometimes surprise people that I haven't read that one.

But the point that sometimes you not only have to win but have to utterly destroy because they won't ever stop coming back for more is not lost on me.

[GaGrl]

The book is way better than the movie.

Would have been nice to have read the book on NPD/BPD and not have had to "live the movie... . ", huh?

I wouldn't have finished the book.  I would have thought it was too surreal to be interesting.

Matt, as I've often said, "I write fiction, but even I couldn't make this you-know-what up!"

[Matt]

So where you're at is that if you play it cool - you walk on a few eggshells - you might avoid the cost and stress of court, and things work out pretty well.

Or if you don't think that's going well enough, you could gather your best evidence, and go back to court, aiming for a big win that will make the future easier.

I think this is the basic issue most of us struggle with.  And I think most of us go through one big court battle, which can take a year or two, and then (most of us) avoid another big court battle, and make do - find ways to manage situations, so things get slowly better, and we avoid the cost and hassle of court.

Just as food for thought, there is a third option, but you have to go into it willing to go to court if need be:

You can develop your case, in your own mind - maybe with a little legal advice - pull together some evidence, and learn about critical legal points - and then take a stand based on what you have learned.

I've told my story about this:  I needed to move 250 miles for work, and I intended to take the kids, then in middle school, but their mom passive-aggressively refused to cooperate, even when I offered to pay her cost of moving, plus a few months of living expenses.  Ultimately that's what we settled on - exactly what I offered - but not til I had confronted her, in the presence of our court-appointed mediator, with what I saw as the key legal issues, including some criminal matters, and the likely outcome.  Polite and professional but pretty blunt and confrontational too.

It worked, and cost only the mediator's time - no legal fees.  (Plus the cost of the settlement itself, which I had worked out to be affordable.)

I think this middle option is often overlooked, and could probably be effective in most cases, and much cheaper than court.  It only makes sense if you are willing to go to court;  I'm not suggesting you bluff.  And I think it's important to double-check your motives, to make sure the outcome you are aiming at is what's best for the kids, in your judgment.

How would you implement this approach in your case?  I'm not sure - I don't understand your situation well enough.  But as an example, you might - after doing your homework - write an e-mail to Biodad, clarifying the court order - that is, saying "Here's what the court order says, and here's what we believe it means, so we will act accordingly."  State what you will do, and then do it.

Biodad could accept that - or maybe haggle a little, reasonably.  Or he could just walk away and not be a dad (still).  Or he could threaten (or initiate) court action, which might require mediation.  If the issue is important enough, all these would probably work out OK, and it's likely you could face him down without court or an attorney, if you know you are on solid ground.

But certainly more stressful than managing the situation without such a confrontation, at least short-term... .

[livednlearned]

The dad hasn't reached out for two years, right? All but abandoned the kids. The issue currently on the table is all about the extended family... . and about SO doing what she thinks is best for the kids. And probably dealing with some of her own FOG. Yes?

I don't see how this is about court. Am I missing something?

[Waddams]

How would you implement this approach in your case?

I'm not certain.  SO won't willingly relax on supervised visits until Biodad provides documentation he's been to T, is paid up and staying paid up on CS, and is exercising his supervised visits for an extended period of time.

I guess the concern legally is down the road dealing with claims she is blocking biodad's and his family's access to the kids.  Which to be honest, she is, but she has reasonable justification to do so because they've proven they are not safe people for the kids to be around and SO has the court orders giving her authority to do it. 

As for mediation and you're suggestion - I like it.  Not sure how to implement it, and I'm also not sure it work with this guy in particular because he's just so incredibly entitled and ASPD/BPD/whatever, I think he's more interested in the fight and finding ways to punish her.  He's not focused on resolution.  And he's, how to say this, let's just say he doesn't seem to have the cognitive ability to recognize his own accountability.  My direct interactions with him have been very limited (one phone conversation when he tried to threaten and scare me into leaving SO, and just some things I can only describe as pure crazy at a TPO hearing).  Beyond that SO kids miss him and want to see their dad, but they also openly express still being afraid of him.  I guess that happens after experiencing being duct taped up in closets, beaten with iron shovels, etc. (all of which was documented by the authorities when the supervised orders were put in place).

With this guy in particular, I don't think there's a chance of mediation succeeding because he's just batsh!t crazy.

The dad hasn't reached out for two years, right? All but abandoned the kids. The issue currently on the table is all about the extended family... . and about SO doing what she thinks is best for the kids. And probably dealing with some of her own FOG. Yes?

I don't see how this is about court. Am I missing something?

It's not about court at the moment.  My concern is figuring out a way to make their future complaints about blocked access have less teeth by showing an attempt to work something out for the kid's benefit, but also showing them not be willing to comply with the court orders.  Call it planning for the future.

In the end, I think SO has just decided to not send them at all.  She got some extra info. yesterday and it looks like it's some kind of event to celebrate biodad's new marriage to woman that is only something like 20 years old.  The extended family is trying to deceive her and do an end around the supervised visits.  So issue solved for now at least.  Just tell them no and be done.