Update & quick question about representation

[kells76]

Trying to plan a few steps ahead... .

DH had his L send his uBPDxw the "please collaborate with me on the PP in mediation or I will file one with the court" letter, and short story is they'll "mediate" next week. (Mom did ask in her reply if DH wanted her to get herself a lawyer  ). DH holds about 5% hope that they'll actually work one out, which seems realistic, but he still is willing to give 1 hour of mediation a shot, just to get on paper that he tried.

Given that mediation probably won't actually work, and that Mom will probably challenge any PP that DH files, it seems like at some point Mom will need to get a L. We think they can't afford one, which leads to my question -- so I know you can represent yourself in court (pro se?), or have a L represent you. Mom's H is fairly narc-y, super triggered by DH, & codependently protective of Mom. Can she have him represent her? That is, can you just have anyone you pick represent you in court, or are there rules about that?

[FamilyLaw]

In my state, no, a non-lawyer cannot represent a person in court. I suspect that is true throughout the US, because it would be considered practicing law without a license.  The only place I've seen non-lawyer advocates is in tribal courts, but they are specially trained and approved by the tribal court.

[Blistex]

Not they cannot.

If she does do pro se (don't recommend it), try to keep strictly to the facts only if ex is questioned.

He will (if like my ex) try to change the subject to make you look bad or use adverbs/adjectives that are emotionally charged.

Definitely go down to the court house and watch some trials to get a better idea.  (both trials where pro per only is involved and where lawyers are involved).

In my state, it is required that both parties meet to see if they can settle out of court before going to trial.  It can be long or short.  Mine lasted 60 seconds and then we set a trial date.

One of the big benefits of using a lawyer is that they are emotionally detached and are less likely to get swayed by the vocab and answers the pd's use. 

If any way possible it is best to have both sides represented in court.  The reason why is one side is represented and the other side is not represented the orders/judgment could get set aside and perhaps start over. 

Good luck!

[ForeverDad]

Mediation is almost everywhere an "attempt" - either required or preferrred by the court - which generally doesn't ever work unless it's near the end of a case such as just before a big hearing or court event where entitlement and unilateral demands don't work.

So DH can attempt mediation, even make a sincere effort to succeed, but he must not view it as "I have to walk out with a settlement".

Also, if mediation fails then generally any tentative deals go away too, ex does not get to use them as a starting point for the next go-around and thereby start with an advantage.

[kells76]

FamilyLaw & blistex, thanks for the clarification, that's helpful for planning.

Blistex, it sounds like your experience is that if in court, one party has and one party doesn't have a L, that could have future repercussions? Could you talk about that a bit more?

ForeverDad, that's a good way to think about mediation with a high conflict person, and that'll be DH's approach -- not the desperation of "this mediation session is my final step" so he has to settle for less, but the security of knowing that he's the one going in both willing to actually try and willing to walk away. I don't think his ex is willing to genuinely try, and I'm not sure she realizes how ready he is to stop playing her game. As DH said the other day, "It feels nice to finally have some b@11s" 

I'll keep you guys posted, as DH just set a boundary in email to her that mediation is for her, him, & the mediator only -- not for Stepdad to come along, too.

[Nope]

When one party goes in pro se the judge tends to go easy on that party when it comes to procedural rules since there is no way the average citizen can be expected to know all the rules for court. Some judges have even taken the time to explain things to pro se litigants to help them out. But how big an impact that has depends on the individual judge.

Depending on what kind of L she gets it can be useful or detrimental in a high conflict case. My DH's uBPDex had four lawyers in the span of our case. The first three expected her to play ball like a reasonable person (particularly because she couldn't afford to pay them if it went to court) and all three ditched her or fought with her until she ditched them. Her last L was a terrible enabler and advocated hard for every crazy thing she wanted. In the end that was her L when we went to court. After two full days of court (day and a half scheduled and then another half a day for an emergency hearing later on) DH got pretty much full physical custody and BPD mom's L couldn't get a dime out of her for any of it since it looked like BPD mom promised to pay her back over time out of the child support.

[DreamGirl]

Sometimes a good mediator really helps. I think having hope and being realistic is pretty helpful. 5% chance sounds pretty realistic in your case. 

My husband and his ex were able to resolve a couple of issues a couple of times. Having certain items explained to her by a third party proved to be very helpful. My husband was also very open to compromising where mom benefited the most, so that helped too. 

[Blistex]

Just from what I have seen, if a stipulated judgment, meaning for example both parties agree and only has a 1 lawyer, one could argue undue influence, ect occurred and argue to have the stipulated judgment set aside and start over.  It's not guaranteed, it's only a possibility. 

And if it is over spousal support, child support, vistitation I believe the court can retain jurisdiction and new motions can be filed anway.

In my state anyway, if one person cannot afford a lawyer, they can have the other person pay so both have access to equal representation.  Have you looked into it?  Or is it a possibility?

I am not sure which issues you are going to court over?

Also in my state, they have a family law center at the courthouse that can help explain procedures and filling out forms.

Good luck!

[livednlearned]

Sometimes what happens is that the disordered person is so unreasonable that a triangle forms, where your H and the mediator will start to feel like a team. Biomom will dig in her heels even harder -- she may feel like people are ganging up on her.

I would probably feel the same way, to be honest. It's really really stressful to think that some stranger is going to make decisions about your kids.

Hopefully, your mediator has some skills to make sure he or she can appear unbiased. My ex actually managed to agree to a lot of things, partly because he wanted to impress his lawyer. (We were in separate rooms.) So sometimes, there are surprises. It's possible nothing gets resolved, and it's also possible that your H has a great mediator who can get some agreement, while leaving others things out to be ruled on in court.

I'm not sure how disordered your H's ex is. I do think it helps to understand BPD -- oftentimes, biomoms act the way they do because they're genuinely afraid that something bad is going to happen to the kids, which may be experienced as extensions of the pwBPD. Being able to speak to that fear, and to validate and address it, may be enough to help her step down off her horse and reason with your H.

With pwBPD, communication skills really can make a difference. And it's good to know your H has a couple of other plans if things don't go well in mediation.

[ForeverDad]

People called my ex "hyper-vigilant" which translated to Mother knows better than anybody and her perceptions must not be questioned.   

When we separated she also was triggered to try anything and everything (allegations of every sort) to make me look not just bad but also look worse than her.  LnL is right, court didn't care very much about who was right or wrong.  A good strategy is to be assertive, proactive and solution-oriented, that is, be seen as the problem solver for the professionals.  And make sure everything is phrased in relation to how the kids are impacted.

For example, rather than just saying, "I don't want her harassing me at my home", rephrase it to something like, "The children get upset when she comes to my residence and causes a confrontation so I need us to keep our distance from one another and have all necessary contact such as child exchanges at neutral locations."

They may not take up your proposed solutions at first but over time they'll see that you really do know your situation best and have practical options.  The ex is likely to be oppositional or even obstructive so be aware that you likely can't reason with her.  Due to the past close relationship and that perceptions and triggered moods mean more than facts to her, what you say or propose won't get past her emotional baggage of the failed relationship.

That's the beauty of court orders.  While they're not perfect and often take years to work out the kinks, they reflect who has the Real Authority... .the court.  The ex may repeated try to reinterpret it in ex's own favor, there's a limit to how much it can be pretzel-twisted.  And as you tweak the order upon returns to court, that too should reduce, though probably not eliminate, the ability to cause continued conflict.

Since she seems to be obstructing your parenting, she's likely trying to alienate the children.  Since she can rile them up quickly it's clear she's primed them over the years to be easily manipulated and influenced.  They could use long term counseling to help them learn to be observant, accept proper validation and be able to form their own independent conclusions and stick to them.  That, of course, would be a long process and not an event.

[kells76]

Thank y'all so much for keeping on helping us out. It's much appreciated. I'm at work so I don't have much time to respond individually but I'll try to write some thoughts... .

Our mediator, who is also our marriage counselor (long story), has said he wants good for all of us involved in this, and I believe it. So that's where he's coming from. I think he's good enough at helping everyone feel heard that Mom keeps asking us to use him as a mediator. Ok, no problem there.

Possible hiccup -- so DH set the boundary that mediation is just for him, mom, & counselor. Mom hasn't emailed back, and that silence is unexpected. We think Stepdad is pretty upset about this. I thought DH did a good job in his email not making it personal -- just saying that he and Mom, as the parents, were in the best position to know what the kids need, and that limiting participation would help both their voices be heard. So... .Now Mom is in the position of either saying No, Stepdad is coming too, which might not look very cooperative, or staying quiet but bringing him along to mediation anyway, which puts DH in a pickle. Fortunately DH has some time to figure out how to deal with that possibility, and at this point he thinks if Stepdad shows up, he'll ask him to wait in the waiting room. Which might get ugly.

Last time we tried mediation, all 4 of us were there, and it didn't go so well. Plus, this mediation is about finally filing a PP, which legally neither I nor Stepdad has say in, so... .thoughts? DH is open to hearing from Stepdad in a letter or email, btw.

[ForeverDad]

Has the mediator commented on this?  This sounds reasonable.  Some states don't even allow the lawyers to attend, not to mention other people, and yours may be one of them.  After all, if either parent needed to consult or contact others, they could always call for a restroom break and talk outside the session room or office.

If she claims she feels threatened by him, even with the counselor there, then they could use separate rooms as is sometimes done.  After all this time it would appear to be more posturing than fear, I would guess.

[kells76]

Mediator knows about this; is supportive of DH's boundary, especially since it's not like DH is trying to include me but exclude Stepdad -- neither stepparent would be there. Fine by me.

Probably Mom is in a bind -- she might feel like things would go better for her if Stepdad is there, but I think she's getting smart enough to not put in writing that she insists on him attending -- could look uncooperative. So she's kind of stuck behind the reasonableness and fairness of DH's request.

She probably feels uncomfortable, and might interpret that as coming from DH, so it's possible she'll take a victim position ("You're bullying me, I feel unsafe, whatever". Which would be inconsistent given that she's fine having DH pick up the kids from her without any other adults around.

Yeah, it might be a 2 rooms mediation situation... .I'll post more updates as I have 'em. Just a funny bind she has found herself in.